Blog

The following is a letter that was sent to Tesla Roadster customers on December 21 to review key developments in the Roadster program. These updates were first revealed a week prior in a customer town hall meeting, which was hosted by Chairman Elon Musk and President and CEO Ze'ev Drori at Tesla's corporate office. More than 100 customers attended, either in person or via conference call. As he notes at the end of the letter, Ze'ev plans to contribute more to the Tesla blog in the new year.

An Update from Tesla Motors President & CEO Ze'ev Drori

"What are your goals for Tesla Motors?" That is the most common question I have received during my first few weeks on the job, and I have answered the question very simply: to put the Tesla Roadster on the road as soon as possible. There are many other things to get excited about for the future of this company, but nothing is as important as bringing our first product to market.

As a consequence of this intensity of focus, I know that we have not been communicating with our customers as frequently as you have grown accustomed to. As the first step in a renewed commitment to keep customers informed of our progress, we held a town hall style meeting on December 12 and invited all Tesla customers to attend in person or join the discussion over the telephone. An audio recording of the event is available on our website.

If you haven't had a chance to listen to the audio recording, the summary below highlights some of the new and important pieces of information shared with the group:

Transmission status – The transmission is the primary source of our delay and the key focus of our activities. We continue to refine and validate other aspects of the car along the way, but the gating factor to get into full production is the availability of a reliable, tested transmission that will last many miles.

It may seem like a simple thing, but a durable transmission is actually very difficult to engineer in a high performance EV application. We have had several experienced suppliers try in the past, but now we have the appropriate level of internal resources combined with external expertise to ensure we get it right this time. We have also adopted multiple, parallel paths so that we are not dependent on one approach.

To help speed delivery of cars, we will begin production in 2008 with an interim transmission design. These transmissions will meet high standards for reliability and durability, but the car will not meet the original performance spec for acceleration, reaching 60 mph in 5.7 seconds instead of the promised 4 seconds. When the final transmission is ready, we will retrofit all cars, at Tesla's expense, to meet the promised performance specifications.

It should be noted that the interim design is one we have a lot of experience with, having accumulated more than 100,000 miles of usage in our fleet. We have found these transmissions to be highly reliable and durable. It should also be noted that this was the transmission fitted to VP10 for the test drives we did with all of the top U.S. car magazines in early December. I think you will enjoy the driving experience as much as they did, even with this interim solution.

Production schedule – Our goal is to start full production of Tesla Roadsters in spring 2008. Once production has begun, the ramp rate of the production volume will depend on how quickly our suppliers can ramp production of parts and how quickly Lotus can increase the rate of the production line. Because of this dependency we don't yet know when each car will be built or how many cars will be completed in calendar year 2008. We plan to accelerate production until all 2008 orders are filled, although we expect some number of cars to be delivered in early 2009. We will provide more information about production schedules and volume as our plans develop.

Prior to entering full production, we will build a limited number of production vehicles through the early part of 2008. This will give us the opportunity to practice our production readiness with our manufacturing, supply chain, and customer service capabilities.Car number one, which belongs to Chairman Elon Musk, has already been completed and will be shipped to California as soon as the DOT (Department of Transportation) paperwork is completed. All FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards) crash tests have been completed successfully. There are a few other items remaining for complete DOT certification but it should be ready soon. Look for a blog with more details on this topic from Mac Powell, Vice President of Vehicle Integration, soon.

Commitment – The management and employees of Tesla Motors remain completely committed to delivering quality cars to everyone who has reserved a car. During the call, Elon expressed his own personal commitment to support the company and also stressed that the company is not for sale. We intend to continue to operate as an independent company producing great electric vehicles. Elon has written a blog on this subject that you can read on our website.

Range – In September, Vehicle Systems Engineer Andrew Simpson updated you about the driving range of the Tesla Roadster. In this blog he explained some of the preparation that took place to ready a car for the required EPA range tests. He then revealed the results of the EPA range tests as well as a number of real world range tests that he has performed. Since then, the independent lab that performed the test (Automotive Testing and Development Services, Inc.) informed us that they made a small error in the testing procedure (they entered some incorrect parameters into the calibration of the dynamometer), resulting in an overstated EPA range figure.

A recent re-test resulted in an EPA combined range of 221 miles, which we believe to be an accurate result. Since the error was in calibration of the test equipment, and not due to the actual efficiency of the car (which was unchanged from the first test), the real world range numbers are unchanged. We have seen as high as 267 miles per charge in slow city driving to as low as 165 miles in aggressive highway driving. While the EPA range test is required for certification and labeling on new cars and a good benchmark, we feel the real world numbers are a better reflection of what you might see in day-to-day use.

We will need to re-test the car prior to full production, so the current test should be considered an estimate. The transmission is an important factor in determining drivetrain efficiency, so the final design may impact the result in either direction slightly.

In the near future I am hoping to share more with you about me and my thoughts on the company and its future. I also look forward to getting to know many of you. You are all part of an incredible journey that I am now privileged to be a part of.

Glad to hear that things are progressing nicely. I know that a lot of us are very excited to see that you are still progressing on the Roadster. I'm still in college, so it'll be a bit before I can afford one, but I'm hoping that I might drive a Whitestar or Bluestar someday. Good luck and thanks for the update! You certainly make me excited that I'm pursuing battery research in grad school.

Ladson Isaac

9:19pm | Dec 27, 2007

Welcome to the blog and please know that we all have a great interest in seeing Tesla Motors achieve all its milestones. Those of us who believe that solar power and BEVs are our county's destiny, support you and the company's efforts most positively.

Nothing breeds confidence like success! And nothing enhances credibility like a fulfilled promise! I for one am pleased you have made the decision to put the cars on the road timely.

Jason M. Hendler

10:03pm | Dec 27, 2007

I love your new approach to solving the transmission problem, as well as continuing to life test all parts of the vehicles, and make improvements as you go. I also like your background as an entrepreneur and a sports car enthusiast, so you will be a good fit at the helm of Tesla Motors.

We always hear under four seconds, not 4 seconds. I hope the new transmission isn't disrupting the performance targets.

" the independent lab that performed the test (Automotive Testing and Development Services, Inc.) informed us that they made a small error in the testing procedure (they entered some incorrect parameters into the calibration of the dynamometer) "

I hope it really was a mistake and not a little white lie on Tesla's part. :)

It's very, very good to hear from the new CEO. I hope he will lead the company well.

Sid

1:05am | Dec 28, 2007

You say that full production starts in spring.

Will you be delivering some earlier than that so that the world can see that the Roadster is not "vapourware". I know that Elan's is due soon. I am interested to know if there will be a slow ramp up starting before Spring and if so when that will start?

WarpedOne

2:13am | Dec 28, 2007

Now this is a very welcome and unexpected gift to us Tesla fans!

Post from the new CEO, even though it doesn't state anything really new except those 5.7seconds, is a light many of us has been waiting for. Martin has spoiled us much, I guess :)

Ze'ev: "We intend to continue to operate as an independent company producing great electric vehicles."

This is a music to my ears and my wallet openner. Don't scare me/us with range extenders any more. Please, pritty please!

Ryan Lamansky / Kardax

10:29am | Dec 28, 2007

In section 3, "Commitment", it would be good to link to Elon's blog entry somewhere. That way people who haven't been keeping up can find it easily.

Overall, I'm pleased that Tesla remains intensely focused on finishing the Roadster. I know lots of people are whining and begging for WhiteStar (model 2) info, but I think it's more important that Tesla establish its credibility and reputation as the "real deal" before embarking upon that new adventure :)

Bill

12:51pm | Dec 28, 2007

"It should also be noted that this was the transmission fitted to VP10 for the test drives we did with all of the top U.S. car magazines in early December. I think you will enjoy the driving experience as much as they did, even with this interim solution."

I sure hope the magazine testers at least got to do performance spec testing using both first and second gear. On my test drive (and I presume all customer test drives) first gear was not an option. I would expect to see some skepticism from Car & Driver if they were not able to drive the car all out (actually, I expect to see skepticism from Car & Driver no matter what).

Gregg Schultz

2:48pm | Dec 28, 2007

I agree with Ryan, I think that Tesla's doing the right thing by focusing on the challenges of bringing it's first product to market instead of leaking out details of a future project. Even though communication with customers is important (as acknowledged in the blog), what separates Tesla from other electric vehicle companies in my eyes is that Tesla does more than simply show a pretty picture or show off an impressive prototype but actually goes down to business when it comes to mass producing it: even through all the complications. People may complain about an initial less-than-expected acceleration, but it's better to have an available car that does it in 5.7 seconds than a bunch of not-for-sale vehicles that do it in 4. Plus, as Ryan said, right now I think it's better to bring your first product into reality rather than building excitement for a car that's a few years away. It seems to be a common theme among the blog comments thus far to support what's happening at Tesla; and I, too, think that Ze'ev is taking Tesla in the right direction.

Great to hear that things are on the right track! I like your approach to solve the transmission problem. Better go the safe way and retrofit, instead of delivering a car which performs on the paper but causes troubles on the road. I wish you all continued success and hope to hear soon more about the Whitestar.

Great news! Glad to see the transmission challenge resolved, and that production will start soon.

Mark Campbell

12:18am | Dec 29, 2007

Good day,
I am curious as to whether Tesla has investigated the Da Vinci CVT (Continuous Variable Transmission) as a solution to the stated transmission problems of acceleration under load? I recently read some about this technology, and found that Ford has implemented this in their "500" model. As the system uses no real gears, it would seem the bear up well to the torque applied by an electric power plant...

Thanks for hearing me out...

Mark Campbell[Contact details deleted]

Mark Tomlinson

12:44am | Dec 29, 2007

Good to hear from you Ze'ev! With this post, Tesla Motors demonstrates several attributes that set you far and away above any other EV company - or any auto company at all.
* A history of openness and honesty that goes all the way up and down corporate food chain.
* A history of experienced, intelligent management that firmly believe in the product. Even interim CEO Micheal Marks brought experience with a global supply chain when Tesla needed it.
* You are actually producing an electric car that people actually want. It's great to hear your commitment to get the Roadster on the road. Even if that means I may have to wait a little longer for my Whitestar (or model 2, or whatever).

I firmly believe that he early 21st Century will be as heady of a time for the electric car as the early 20th Century was for the gasoline engine. We're seeing history unfold, and it's exciting to be a part of it.

andrew kelsey

6:11am | Dec 29, 2007

##Joseph wrote on December 27th, 2007 at 10:46 pm We always hear under four seconds, not 4 seconds. I hope the new transmission isn’t disrupting the performance targets.

Joseph, the guy isn't a lawyer is he? I wouldn't read too much into this '4 seconds' comment. I'm sure it's just a casual way of referring to the earlier promise.

##WarpedOne wrote on December 28th, 2007 at 1:13 am
Ze’ev: “We intend to continue to operate as an independent company producing great electric vehicles.”
This is a music to my ears and my wallet openner. Don’t scare me/us with range extenders any more. Please, pritty please!

WarpedOne. By the same token I wouldn't read too much into this comment. He's not making a new statement of intent, he's just casually commenting on a blog. An electric vehicle can still be an electric vehicle even if it has a Range Extender of some sort. You and I might think it's not such a pure EV but it is still an EV and better than most alternatives.

Let's give the guy a break and not force him to carefully analyse every word before he writes it. This is supposed to be a friendly forum and not a place to go 'lawyering' each other to death.

CM

2:54pm | Dec 29, 2007

Mark Campbell: I looked for the "Da Vinci CVT" you mentioned, found instead the "Nu Vinci CVT" at fallbrooktech.com

Interesting design, but as a friction drive it would have more drag than a standard geared transmission, reducing range, and it might not hold up to the extreme torque produced by the Tesla motor.

I suspect that many at Tesla Motors are now strongly considering designing an alternative to the Roadster as a two seat hard top commuter with a reliable single speed transmission, a lower drag coefficient, and perhaps a slightly smaller less expensive battery pack. It would not be as "sporty", but would still have respectable performance and range, and being more affordable might eventually outsell the Roadster.

Of course, the priority "Job One" is getting the Roadsters on the road, and "Job Two" is the sedan. Could the Commuter be Job Three?

Well first glad to see the Tesla roadster finally getting close to production.

These AC motors are perfect with a single speed transmission (ie an overall gear ratio around 7 to 8:1.....mutiply the 1 speed transmission ratio with the differential rato), which will get you 0-60 LESS then 4 second, but only have a top speed of about 100mph given a max motor speed of 13K rpm. Alan Cocconi (AC Propulsion) showed this capability with the T-Zero almost 7 years ago ( http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero/performance.htm ). He created the AC-150KW power plant back in 1994, so for those of us who think this is the "lastest-greatest"......then think again. We are standing in the shadows of giants...

The only reason I believe to have a two speed transmission it to have a top speed over 100mph. Sometimes I forget how many states have a speed limit above 100mph.......but I think Texas (some place between Junction & El Paso) has the highest posted speed limit at 80mph. So other than bragging rights, there is no other legal reason to go faster then 80mph, and is a dangerous to all of use sharing the road, reduces battery life and range, which is counterproductive to what the main goal is, which is to make us independent from the middle eastern oil.

I don't think that any of use who love EV cars, want to see any of these Tesla cars crash (and hopefully note burn) due to excesses speeds, which may scare away future prospective buyers away. I know that with Li-Ion batteries, such as from A123, this risk (battery explosion) is greatly minimized, but people don't realize the danger (electrocution) to people such as police & firemen who may have to deal with a crash scene with EV vehicles. I have personally had 336V DC across my body (working on the construction of a hybrid EV in the mid 90's) and it was something I would not want happen to anyone who is trying to pull some out of a crashed car.

Respectfully,
Ernie

CTF

5:46pm | Dec 29, 2007

Kelsey wrote "Let’s give the guy a break and not force him to carefully analyse every word before he writes it. " These blogs are phenominal resource and Ithink they reflect quite favorably on Tesla Motors as innovative in many more areas than making cars. Mr. Drori might not be a lawyer, but as CEO he will be consulting with them. They will be diligent in informing him of California's and the US codes regarding consumer protection and what advertising copy will bind the company to performance and what could be mere "puffery." This will indeed require careful analysis. Writing is thinking and I have been impressed that the people that have dedicated themselves to this venture are deep thinkers. Four means four and less than four means 3.XXXXX. I credit the company for finding a workable solution to a technical issue that will not compromise their integrity.

T.J.

11:46pm | Dec 29, 2007

Re. Nu Vinci transmission-website said it offers "greater powertrain system effciency" ? CM sez : more friction, so no (?). Maybe with spheres not more friction than in gears (?). I mentioned this transmission on blog a few weeks ago- it won Popular Science Mag. award, was developed by two bicycle maker guys. MIT group has powered a 60 watt bulb wirelessly from 6' away with "magnetic resonance" in first test of the idea. Supposedly efficient and doesn't "interact" with other elect. systems (or humans)-since only "resonates" with "resonator" at other end. Said to be like what Tesla was doing with a huge tower device, but he never got it finshed. This could maybe be used to power a high speed "trainbus" wheeled vehicle on a "HOV" lane addition to existing freeways (?)-wonder if this would be cheaper & easier to implement than regular or maglev trains ?

andrew kelsey

6:55am | Dec 30, 2007

CTF. It's because these blogs are such a phenomenal resource that I don't want Mr Drori or any of the other Teslans to feel reluctant to write anything because they'll be held to account over every tiny detail. Sure 4 means 4 and less than 4 means 3.xx but the guy was just using a kind of shorthand to refer to the claim. He wasn't surreptitiously lowering expectations from 'less than 4 seconds' to '4 seconds', under legal advice. Because the transmission issue is not yet finally resolved nobody can possibly know exactly what zero to sixty time will eventually emerge. I'm sure it will be around 4 seconds and that's good enough for me for the moment. Of course when everything is finalised we'll expect magazine testers to be able to replicate the official times claimed but in the meantime let's just take this rare opportunity to chat with the direcors of the company and not expect them to consult lawyers before every posting.

Steve

12:21pm | Dec 30, 2007

T.J. wrote on December 29th, 2007 at 10:46 pm said

MIT group has powered a 60 watt bulb wirelessly from 6′ away with “magnetic resonance” in first test of the idea. Supposedly efficient and doesn’t “interact” with other elect. systems (or humans)-since only “resonates” with “resonator” at other end. Said to be like what Tesla was doing with a huge tower device, but he never got it finshed.

This technology is nothing new , The reasson this tech. never got off the ground was because Tesla's financial backer JP Morgan cut the plug on it and sold off the land because tesla told him that there would be no way he could slap a meter on it and charge a fee . The electricity would have been accessable to anyone around the world for free . But like w/ any busines mans way of thinking, if you can't make a profit , it's not worth it. .. which is certainly why Tesla is ommitted from the American educational system . If the american people learned the origins of the things we take for granted on an everyday basis , people like thomas edison and Marconi wouldn't have been given all of the credit . If it werent for tesla we'd have power sub stations every 3 blocks from each other, and we'd still be hand crank starting our vehicles, also we'd have to get up off our butts to change the tv station. So actually our electric bill statements instead if saying" make check payable to Commonwealth Edison ", it should really say Commonwealth Tesla... He Died a poor man in a New York , Manhattan Hotel. Yeah he did have his mental issues (OCD ), but wouldn't you after most of your lifes work had burned down to the ground. Sorry for the history lesson. Tesla was one of many gifts to the world and he was swept under a rug becuase he cared for something more than his back pocket.

CTF

2:33pm | Dec 30, 2007

Lincoln said " The truth can stand on its own." On the very front page of this site the roadster is attributed acceleration that will get it to the rate of 60 mph in "under 4 seconds." This could be construed as a warranty. Heaven forbid that Tesla Motors has to ever deal with a recall involving a faulty part that will cause accidents. Hopefully customers will all be pleased with their vehicles that Tesla is able to under promise and over deliver. If not....... well, that is where the lawyers come in and they will parse every statement. Put it down to our overly litigous society or the nature of our adversarial system of justice, but that is what will happen.

Here, I am impressed with how Tesla is motivated to stick to their word. I understand that Mr. Drori was communicating offhand and there is a concerted effort to make sure that the transmissions operate as advertised without dangerously impeding the forward progress of the entire endeavor. I sense no fudging of the performance standards here and no fudging of this exceptional communication tool either. Let's enjoy the flow of information as long as we can. If the firm does go public (as seems to be the eventual broad plan) very strict disclosure rules will apply and not only lawyers but public relations gurus and other assorted spin doctors will pre-parse every statement and press releases, spokesperson tid-bits and annual statements will be the vectors of information. Communication with the interested will necessarily be constrained. This is the nature of American business and is not necessarily a bad thing. In the meantime, I too relish these chats. It can give a feel for the entire firm, its philosophy and motivation. That need not change so very much for being carefully engaged in and Tesla seems in fact to be careful and concise in these pages ( I object only to the white on black text and smallish font ,my eyes not being what they were) This isconcern for quality is good preperation for the future.

Jason M. Hendler

5:38pm | Dec 30, 2007

Andrew Kelsey,

LOL - Teslans, from the planet Tesla ....

James Anderson Merritt

2:37am | Dec 31, 2007

What a coincidence. ZE'EV = Zero Emissions Electric Vehicles

Just thought I'd point that out. :-)

andrew kelsey

6:35am | Dec 31, 2007

Point taken CTF. Are you a lawyer by any chance?

Jason. That is where they're from isn't it? Have you noticed how Ze'ev Drori and Martin are both wearing the same beard? Spooky huh! And Elon is definitely from another planet...he says so himself.

Peter J Hedge

9:30am | Dec 31, 2007

Re: Planet Tesla

Thanks for the carification. Having read most of the Blogs posted on this site I have oftgen wondered from which planet some bloggers are from.

Now I know!

Peter J Hedge
Victoria, BC

1

5:42pm | Dec 31, 2007

I just read about Stanford's nanowire battery (Stanford Report, 12-18-07). Will this be able to effect the range of the Roadster?

CTF

6:36pm | Dec 31, 2007

Not yet Andrew Kelsey. I'm looking forward to getting out of the books and back at least partially into the real world. Some have told me I will no longer be able to go out in the sunshine then and I won't need mirrors anymore either.

andrew kelsey

7:35am | Jan 1, 2008

##1 wrote on December 31st, 2007 at 4:42 pm
I just read about Stanford’s nanowire battery (Stanford Report, 12-18-07). Will this be able to effect the range of the Roadster?

This subject has already been aired in some detail in these pages. The general consensus seems to be that it might affect the Roadster and any other electric vehicles but not for many years and only if the technology can really be turned into a reliable final product. There's a very long lead time for this sort of thing to get from the lab to the road.

Timo

2:09am | Jan 2, 2008

# andrew kelsey wrote on January 1st, 2008 at 6:35 am

####1 wrote on December 31st, 2007 at 4:42 pm
##I just read about Stanford’s nanowire battery (Stanford Report, 12-18-07). Will this be able
## to effect the range of the Roadster?

## This subject has already been aired in some detail in these pages. The general consensus
## seems to be that it might affect the Roadster and any other electric vehicles but not for many
## years and only if the technology can really be turned into a reliable final product. There’s a very
## long lead time for this sort of thing to get from the lab to the road.

OTOH even that this particular tech is still "distant" future there are several battery tech advances that get ready much sooner. If not in this year then next there should be quite dramatic drop in battery prices as well as increases in energy density. So Roadster range migh be affected by advances in tech even that this nanowire tech doesn't get ready.

Timo

2:22am | Jan 2, 2008

# andrew kelsey wrote on December 30th, 2007 at 5:55 am

## Because the transmission issue is not yet finally resolved nobody can possibly know
## exactly what zero to sixty time will eventually emerge. I’m sure it will be around 4 seconds
## and that’s good enough for me for the moment.

I'm pretty sure it is very easy to get it under four seconds with any transmission they choose. After all you start from zero and there is no gear switching before you reach 60mph so strain for transmission is not a problem at that point. Problem, as I see it, is switching from first gear to second after that. You go from 10000 or so RPM to 5000 or so RPM, and getting that to happen fast without durability problems is a challenge.

They could get that 0-60 under 4 secs with that interim transmission. It only requires some gear ratio tweaking. You lose top speed but gain faster acceleration. Interim can go from 0-60 in 5.7 secs and has top speed of 125mph. If you drop top speed to 100 (max RPM at 100) you gain better acceleration, but 100mph is not satisfying as top speed for sports car.

I love the idea. BUt the reason these wont catch on is because of the PRICE !!!!! I would love one to not be dependent of oil but I could go buy a Scion TV get ok performace (not like this vehcile) and 31 to 34 mpg on the high way and spend 16500 to 17000.

When the price comes down to that kind price im sold but were not all millionares who can affors such things and thats how the OIL COMPANIES want it. So bottom line NEVER GONNA HAPPEN UNLESS COST COMES DOWN. Beside what does it cost to REALLY make one of these anyways 3-4 k ?? Please e-mail me back your response I would love to hear from you

Dear Sir ~
Sorry to interrupt you in a busy day ! But It could be inspiring if you allow me to present you an idea which might be a solution to the green energy for the Vehicle Industry.
According to a news published by Times England and Taiwan local news in Dec. 2007 , I learned that By 2008 TESLA Motors is going to mass production a green car named TESLA Roadster accommodated with advanced Li-ion battery and electric Motor ( made by Taiwan Gongin precision Industrial Co., Ltd ) , accelerating speed from 0 to 60mph in under 4 sec , the top speed 217Km , with 3.5hr re-charging power , it could last 402km distance range. I think it totally consistent with the global green policy .
But It comes to me that “ Could this car recycle the energy supplied by the recharged battery ?? “
Generally , we use sunlight , wind , water power to generate free energy , why can`t all the green cars generate free energy themselves by using their rechargeable battery while moving?? I wonder if my donkey method works ? I don`t know much about cars , so I leave the experiment to you guys with Auto-mobile expertise.
In my thinking way , it could be more efficient by using two re-chargeable Li-ion battery , we use one battery to supply the driving power while steering , on the other side , the other one is under charging by the whirling bearing. The embedded computer switches these two batteries when the first one running out of power. In this way , can we ideally extend the range to infinite ?? I have no idea if each battery can generate enough power during the 402km ( the Max range ) just by using of the bearing ??
But even if this method can not fully charge the battery , it can still extend the range up to 8 times if it takes 90% efficiency for example. I think it can be calculated easily

Ex. If the power consumption is linear to the running distance of the car , the Max range Y could be 402 * ( 1+ X squared + X third powered + X four powered +………. )
If X is a variable , take 90% for instance ( and the Min battery power to move the car is 20% charged state ) , then Y would be almost 3270Km . Totally we extends 7 times of the range . If X is 80% , then Y would be 1586Km ( 4 times of Max range ). The question is if it could efficiently charge fully power for the battery only by using of bearing or there is an alternative??

It could be exciting news if it works , but only you can show me the experiment result or tell me the truth . Furthermore , What I wanna highlight is the energy recycling , if all the free energy can be easily generated by the tools or free natural resource like sunlight , wind , water , fire , heat….. etc. which we can easily get and use. We could never run out of the natural resource and the earth can be well preserved finally .
Anyway , I am very appreciated for your patient to browse my opinion

Sincerely Yours

----

Editor's Answer: The electric motor in the Tesla Roadster was designed by Tesla Motors (San Carlos) and is manufactured by Tesla Motors (Taiwan). Gongin Precision Industrial is one of our suppliers. Please take a look at Martin's blog to get an answer to your recharge question.

I am glad about Tesla's new delivery plan, and the one of a kind product it intends to offer.

Rob

4:14pm | Jan 2, 2008

Eric Yeh , If you’re using power to turn the wheels to charge, where do you think the power comes form to get the extra energy needed to apply force to capture the recharged energy. You’re talking about perpetual motion almost, and it’s just possible.

----

Editor's Surprise: Rob, I assume you have a "not" missing? Let me know.

Timo

8:23am | Jan 3, 2008

Just general comments about recent blogs:

1) I'm glad that Elon Musk and Ze’ev Drori both wrote blogs to clear things up.

2) I'm also glad that in Elons blog mentions range extender. Even that it feels wrong to have RE in EV the current fact is that for longer trips you still need gasoline engine because there is no charging stations for EV:s (yet). RE is natural solution for that, and Elons writing suggests that it will be quite similar to what I imagined RE to be.

3) Whitestar seems to be closer than I expected. I somehow felt that it was abadoned for time being and all resources were in getting Roadster ready, but now that I think of it it seems natural that raw design work is no longer needed for Roadster (just some engineering) and all designers are free to develop Whitestar. Please put some info about preliminary frame of what it will be in here.

4) I hope that Whitestar will be available in Europe. US dollar is currently quite weak currency which results that average person in Europe has more buying power in Europe than US citizens have. (I hate to say this, but it seems that your country is degenerating quite badly). $50k is only approx 36k€ and that is cheapish car in European standards. It definitely is not expensive for luxury sedan.

Mike Craven

11:43am | Jan 3, 2008

This discussion of the transmission issue has me wondering ... How about just something like a fix lock out thingy like the old four wheel drives. Before you start the car - are you going to do sprints and dazzle somebody (1st gear) or are going for a long drive on a fun road trip where "under six" is just fine (2nd gear). Then you wouldn't have the stress as the gears shifted for 1st to 2nd. I suspect most drivers would be in second most of the time. Bear in mind, this is just a temp solution until the new one is in production. But you could still be the quickest kid on the block.

Thanks for your reply ~
At the first beginning , I doubt if it would turn out to be a perpetual motion issue also,
Now I learn it takes more energy to charge the second battery , and shorten the range.
“This additional energy will be more than the generators produce” Mr. Martin Eberhard addressed
If I take it this way
“ At least the second battery is somehow recharged with energy which is enough power to supply the car to move any further ? ”
I don`t know , maybe I am lack of understanding of basic law of physics. I have to go back to school . Haha
Sorry for my interruption ~
Have a good day !

Actually , the earth is doing what we are talking about every day and every year " Rotating and Revolving round the sun "

Never mind ! Just a joke ~

Mark

1:20pm | Jan 3, 2008

John, please read the 'master plan' blog. It discusses your issue in fair detail.
In short, the way I see it, Tesla can't manufacture millions of cars to start with. As they make money selling some of the higher end cars, they can expand their production so that when they make the sports sedan model (White Star) they will be able to produce the larger numbers for the demand. And then, when they build the economy sedan model, they will have greater production capibilities yet.
As for cost, go buy 6000 lithium ion batteries, then build the rest of the ESS and car and see what cost you get:)

Hunter

6:53pm | Jan 3, 2008

Eric, the Earth rotating around the Sun isn't perpetual motion either. This planet (as well as the others) is constantly slowing down, and left alone would eventually fall into the Sun. As it happens, the Sun seems likely to go Nova first, but that's a different story. Anyway, congratulations on letting go of P.E. in just one post ... usually when people come around here with this lunacy they just won't be told any different.

jdevo2004

8:49pm | Jan 3, 2008

Seems as though a company called Boston-Power has come out with a new lithium-ion computer battery with twice the power density and the ability to charge to 80% in half an hour. Production is slated to start next month. This could be a boon for Tesla. I hope they look into it.

charlie

9:14pm | Jan 3, 2008

Fast Charging Stations
(TEG2 since you seem to be very involved, you feedback would be interesting)

The fast charging stations only seem to make sense if you have a fast charge battery pack, if you are at a hotel you do not need fast charge, but if it is part way through a trip then 3 1/2 hrs is too much to wait. Also lot's of people do not have a garage.

There are several things to have the fast charge station, only the first is hard.

1) You need a fast charge battery pack with 53 KWH of storage at less than 650 lbs (the rest of the 900 is the ESS structure) and less cost than Li-Ion

2) You need a standard for the fast charge station and the automobiles where you plug in the standardized fast charge port and pay for a certain KWH. Station checks for ground faults for safety and then supplies voltage and current for the requested amount of KWH's.

The station can be powered from the grid from a 2000 KW or so (essentially a distribution sub station) allowing 3 cars to charge at the same time. This allows three 53 KW pack to charge in about 5 minutes each.

If the power company can't supply the drop, then an intermediate solution would be to generate the power on site from a diesel generator. (Before jumping on me this is a "get the EV's going solution", not a long term solution). Caterpillar makes a 1.875 KW diesel generator now (3516B-TA) for about 500K. It is not very small, (L 19.4 ft x W 7.7 ft x H 8.8 ft) but it could charge 3 cars at the same time in a 5.23 minutes each if they all needed 53 KWh. This would allow 34.41 cars/hour if they were all empty. The fuel consumption is rated at 134 gal/hr or 134/34.41 = 3.89 gallons of diesel per car for a full charge. This would be give the following fuel economy for different ranges.

While this is not close to charging from the grid, it is better than the proposed 35 mpg standard, and better than having a dead battery. You could set the electric charge high enough to make a profit and to encourage home charging.

I did a bit of looking and found out that more than 50% of the population lines in the following 9 states (the other half can wait a bit)

California 155,959 sq miles land area
Texas 261,797 sq miles land area
New York 47,214 sq miles land area
Florida 53,927 sq miles land area
llinois 55,584 sq miles land area
Pennsylvania 44,817 sq miles land area
Ohio 40,948 sq miles land area
Michigan 58,110 sq miles land area
Georgia 57,906 sq miles land area

Total 775,352 sq miles land area

Without even taking population density into account for locations, you could use 7,754 evenly distributed gensets on a 10 mile by 10 mile grid to insure that 50% of the US population was no more than 7.07 miles from a fast charging station each capable of supporting 3 cars at the same time and each able to charge a car in 5 minutes. Cost for the generators would be 500K x 7,753 or about 3.877 billion dollars. This of course does not include the land, permits, cables, station infrastructure, diesel storage etc, only the gensets. The rest of the cost should not be worse than a standard small gas station. Seems like a good use of government money to jump start an industry for probably less than 10 billion investment.

If there are no fast charge battery packs then this configuration is probably needed since again people forget to charge, need to go far, don't have a garage etc.
I think it should be an option however.

What is needed at most is that in the time it takes to travel the 165 mile worst case range we need to generate 53 KWatts
We do not know the average speed but lets guess a little

This would allow unlimited range and if the generator had the same efficiency as the Caterpillar one in my last post of 1825KW/134gal = 13.619 KW/gal = 3.89 gallons for 53 KW. This would be great if it was small say less than 1-1.5 cubic feet and less than 100 lbs it would be even better.

Joe G

3:54am | Jan 4, 2008

Eric, according to Einstein's Relativity, the Earth is actually moving in a "Relative" straight line. It is space that is curved around the sun by the gravitation pull. (see bowling balls on trampoline analogy).

And according to Newton, all motion would be perpetual unless acting on by an net external force. A particle moving through a vacuum for example.

Cars also follow the same laws of motion. But on Earth, cars always have external forces to deal with. Wind resistance, which increase exponentially with speed. Rolling resistance, which comes from the tires absorbing kinetic energy. Mechanical resistance, which comes from anything that moves against something else creates friction which turns into heat. All these things act on the car to slow it down and rob it of energy.

For instance, your idea of charging a second battery using the motion in the wheels would put a force against that motion. This would act like braking. And is in fact called regenerative braking and is used in the Tesla Roadster ONLY when the driver wants to slow down. The force is turned back into electricity and charges the battery a little. (Tesla, like other electric cars or Hybrids, use the same battery and motor for regenerative braking) But this cannot be on all the time because the force of the generator would cause the motor to work equally (if not a lot) harder. Read up for more info on Regenerative Braking.

It takes the best engineers to come up with ways of making cars that perform well in spite of these physical laws.

andrew kelsey

4:24am | Jan 4, 2008

I don’t know if this is really the right forum but I’d be interested to know what others think about the possibility of a Range Extender in future Teslas. Personally I think it may be a mistake. Not because it isn’t the best technological solution but simply because it will bring Tesla into direct competition with all the major car manufacturers. As long as they were producing pure BEVs they could be the biggest fish in a pretty small pond and their low-volume, high-cost solution would always attract a loyal following. As soon as you put an engine of any kind into the car it will be up against high-volume manufacturers with all the economies of scale that implies. Everything Tesla buys, from suspension parts to windscreens, will cost it much more than it would cost Ford or GM or Toyota. At the lower end of the REEV or hybrid market there will be Chinese competitors, while at the top end you will have Lexus and Honda. In the middle of the market Volvo and GM’s Volt will be carving out a niche. I can’t see where Tesla could naturally fit in to this. For the reasons explained above it’ll be hard to make the car cost less than a Honda or a Lexus but equally hard to reach those companies’ levels of quality and reliability. For the same money and a similar technological solution most buyers will go for the established manufacturers’ products.

Maybe Tesla has looked in its crystal ball and doesn’t like the look of the future BEV market. At the bottom end there will be Mitsubishi’s MiEV and Subaru’s R1e. Mid size sedans are being designed in China that would superficially look like competitors for the Whitestar. The one advantage I see in this market is that I am not aware of any serious, quality car manufacturer that has any plans for a pure BEV. That’s where I would see a market for Tesla. Even using their current technology a larger heavier four-seat car should still achieve high performance and a reasonable range of say 150 to 180 miles per charge. As battery performance improves range should go up and cost should come down. Of course most mid-size sedan drivers will demand greater range and buy an REEV but there should be a small market for pure BEVs for low mileage, green consumers. That’s where I could see Tesla thriving and growing steadily as improving battery technology gradually makes REEVs redundant.

Timo

8:37am | Jan 4, 2008

Just a though:

If you get better and cheaper battery tech before 2009 and some of the roadsters get delivered at that point, do you install those better batteries to these 2009-model roadsters? If this is the case, then I would like to know how much would it cost to upgrade the ESS to better tech before it is end of the life? QinetiQ has told that they are developing battery manufacturing that lowers the cost to about 1/3 for same kWh and those batteries weight about half of current lithium ion batteries. So double range with 2/3 cost. I bet several other battery manufacturers are doing similar tech advancements.

If Whitestar is ready by 2009, then that might get this better battery, but soon after that emerges that nanowire battery which makes this new battery look like ancient relic. And then carbon nanotube-based ultracapasitors that makes even that battery tech power density look like ancient relic. and so on.

This rate of tech advances in batteries might make people want to upgrade their ESS much before they are dead. That is assuming that those techs don't cost too much. Is there any plans to deal with this?

kert

10:05am | Jan 4, 2008

::$50k is only approx 36k€ and that is cheapish car in European standards.

What you are ignoring in this picture is that while weak dollar makes US goods, including cars, a bit more attractive for us in Europe, it makes putting the car together for that price harder for Tesla, especially considering where the pricey parts, i.e. batteries and motors for example are likely made.
I would expect either performance or price targets for Whitestar to be revised, if these trends continue.

I wouldnt be surprised if the very first fully electric car from OEM i purchase would be Chinese brand. Currently Japanese sounds more likely, but we'll see, its still a few years out.

Sid

11:28am | Jan 4, 2008

Editor, why did you bother responding to Erik Yeh who talks about perpetual motion?

----

Editor's Answer: To correct an incorrect perception about the motor ... and because I felt like it ;-)

Timo

3:13pm | Jan 4, 2008

# charlie wrote on January 3rd, 2008 at 8:14 pm

## The station can be powered from the grid from a 2000 KW or so (essentially a
## distribution sub station) allowing 3 cars to charge at the same time. This allows
## three 53 KW pack to charge in about 5 minutes each.

No need for that kind of grid connection if you have energy storage. For three 53kWh ESS you need three 53kWh storages. Those storages can be much cheaper tech than lithium ion batteries (flywheels, cheap batteries etc.).

You need to calculate average amount of cars / day and how much get charged / car to calculate how big grid connection is really needed and how much storage you need to cover peak usage. The number is in any case much lower than 2000kW.

But in any case 5 minute charge of 53kWh ESS is not problem for storagewise, it is problem because that requires enormous current and/or voltage. That kind of power is not easy to make safe for mundane idiot to use. And you would need to make it literally foolproof.

Peter J Hedge

3:57pm | Jan 4, 2008

Re: New Mexico site

I've been reading about all manner of delays for Tesla but nothing about what's happening with the supposed Whitestar manufacturing site recently obtained in New Mexico.

Does anyone have any news? Just curious.

Peter J Hedge
Victoria, BC

charlie

4:48pm | Jan 4, 2008

Timo

My point was I thought might be the fastest easiest possibly cheapest way to get fast charging to alot of the people quickly IF we had a fast charge low cost battery pack.
Once the first gen fast charge is set up and enough vehicles makes it so people can make money, the solutions will present themselves.
It is hard to get going when the oil competition already has over 170000 fuel stations.
Legislation could force them to give up a small spot for the first gen fast charge space, wouldn't this be a cool use of eminent domain, the diesel is already there hehe.
Obviously your point on peak/average requirements should be taken into account, I was keeping it simple.

If a power substation was used to get the power, the power company would worry about peak/average.

If you generate it onsite then it is probably cheaper the way I suggested since there is little to invent.
By the way I chose 3 cars at the same time since the biggest genset CAT had on the page would support it.

As for the high power,
AeroViroment already makes a 250 KW system, 53 KW in 5 minutes is 636 KW not a huge jump.
As for the safety issue, these are manageable since we have managed to make it so all of us mundane idiots can fill our cars with very flammable and explosive gasoline every day.
It is actually easier since electricity that is not going where it should can be measured (like a GFI) does.

Just reported on the 6pm news tonight in Albuquerque that Tesla will be maintaining the "sedan" manufacturing site at it's original size of 155,000 sq ft. FYI - No progress on the site so far from what I've seen. Got my sleeves rolled up to help out when someone gives the go-ahead.

Tony Hughes

10:02pm | Jan 4, 2008

ELECTRIC AUTOS (Quote from Nikola Tesla December 29, 1904)

“ There is no doubt that a highly-successful machine can be produced on these lines. The field is inexhaustible, and this new type of automobile, introducing electricity between the prime mover and the wheels, has, in my opinion, a great future.”
by Nikola Tesla (ref: http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1904-12-29.htm)

I Have had the privilege to work directly with the Tesla team.
This is the highly advanced team which is bringing the Electric automobile to the world.
I look forward to the day when I purchase mine.
Thank You

Daniel Ademu-John

1:14am | Jan 5, 2008

Question for editor:

It looks like the transmission problem is ‘changing on the fly’ from 13000 rpm to around 5000 when going from 1st to 2nd gear and not the 0-60 torque. If this is the case why not have 2 different driving modes? So if you are driving around town you can still go 0-60 in 4 seconds but if you know you are going to be using the highway you can go to ‘mode 2’ 0-60 in 5.7 seconds . This way you can use the same transmission but you just disable the ‘changing on the fly’ capability . All this will be temporary until the new transmission is ready of course. Thoughts on this?

Thanks,
Dan.

Timo

3:37am | Jan 5, 2008

charlie wrote on January 4th, 2008 at 3:48 pm

## As for the high power,

## AeroViroment already makes a 250 KW system, 53 KW in 5 minutes is 636 KW not a huge jump.
## As for the safety issue, these are manageable since we have managed to make it so all of us
## mundane idiots can fill our cars with very flammable and explosive gasoline every day.

Gasoline isn't actually that flammable, it is the gas-state of gasoline that is explosive.

Problem with 53kWh or bigger future ESS, lets say 100kWh, charging in 5 minutes requires way worse transferring equipment than gasoline which is just a hose with valve at the other end. 100kW is 100000W and for five minutes you need to multiply that with 12 so you need to have 1200000W or 1.2MW connection. No matter which way you divide that to current and voltage, you end up having too big voltage or very thick and heavy wires. You would probably end up having several "tubes" for single charge. Or some mechanized charging robot.

Or you just could settle with 15 minute charge for 50kWh battery and have that 100kWh charge at 30 minutes. It is slow, but not too slow IMO. If you can go 200+ miles with 50kWh ESS it would almost never be empty before you reach charging station (assuming there is similar network of those than there is gasoline stations), so actual charging time would be less. And if you have driven 200+ miles straight then a fast coffee break would be in order anyway.

## It is actually easier since electricity that is not going where it should can be measured (like a GFI) does.

For that kind of powers a teeny weeny fraction of the current is enough to kill a human. It would need fuses that react in milliseconds and to very small variation in current to prevent death. I bet there is more variation in batteries themselves than there would be for accidental human getting toasted. Only way to make this safe is to not to allow human to touch any of the connective surfaces when wires are alive. And if you then still manage to touch connective surface while wires are alive you get a Darwin Award.

kert

6:47pm | Jan 5, 2008

::No matter which way you divide that to current and voltage, you end up having too big voltage or very thick and heavy wires.

Inductive charging. No need for direct wire connection, just connect the magnetic path between the coils. It doesnt of course lessen the power requirements on the system, megawatt is a megawatt, but you could possibly go for quite high voltage with relatively little current, meaning not so bulky cables, and avoid the connector issues almost entirely ( designing secure cable connectors for quick release for kiloamps ... *shudder* )

Daniel Ademu-John , I do not work for Tesla, but as a regular reader I have seen several people suggest that shifting gears is the root of the transmission problems. I have not seen anything that supports that assumption. On the contrary the details given out by Tesla describe the transmission as being similar to an automatic with no torque converter. It has two clutches one is engaged for first gear and the other for 2nd gear. There is a short time about 1/5 second when both clutches are disengaged during shifting and the motor is slowed down during this time so it is close to the required speed when the 2nd gear clutch is engaged. The described problems are mostly about bearings and high load stresses produced at maximum acceleration throughout 1st gear use.

Andrew Kelsey

6:20am | Jan 6, 2008

Roy, where are you getting this information about the transmission? I haven't seen anything so detailed from any Tesla source but I'd be interested to read about it if you can tell me where to find it.

charlie

1:52pm | Jan 6, 2008

Timo

So far the only problem you have presented is a mechanical one.

The high voltage and currents required for any fast charge station are way way beyond lethal levels in the case in an accident.
The voltages and currents for 192 KW are not going to kill you a whole lot slower than your 1.2 MW. (Either is way way above a 220V 30 A home circuit)

The fuses you speak of are much faster than milliseconds at these power levels, they are done electronically not mechanically.

The mechanical aspects also not that big a deal, the cable just happens to be heavy and can be overcome with a counterweight cable like alot of stations today.

Tesla discusses the root of the transmission problem in some fair detail in the town hall audio. See Ze'ev Drori's links, above.

Timo

4:00pm | Jan 6, 2008

# kert wrote on January 5th, 2008 at 5:47 pm

## ::No matter which way you divide that to current and voltage, you end up having too big
## voltage or very thick and heavy wires.

## Inductive charging. No need for direct wire connection, just connect the magnetic path
## between the coils. It doesnt of course lessen the power requirements on the system,
## megawatt is a megawatt, but you could possibly go for quite high voltage with relatively
## little current, meaning not so bulky cables, and avoid the connector issues almost entirely
## ( designing secure cable connectors for quick release for kiloamps … *shudder* )

This is interesting idea. How would you do that in practice? What kind of equipment would that require? (size of the coil etc.) This could allow that 5min charging while still being safe and easy to use but my knowledge about this kind of equipment is close to zero so I can't say anything about validity of it.

It could be nice to hear something about that from Tesla group. This fast charging will be future of the automobile, so this (safe transfer of huge energy) has to be one of the goals of the Tesla group too. Any thoughts?

Daniel Ademu-John

7:20pm | Jan 6, 2008

Roy, I second what Andrew Kelsey said. Where can we find the actual details of the trans problem?

Loren Carpenter wrote on October 31st, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I was fortunate to get a brief tour of the San Carlos plant a month or so ago. Toward the end of the tour Zak showed me one of the new transmissions on a workstand. It was smaller than I expected, especially as it includes the transaxle/differential. The very intricate castings told me that someone really good spent a lot of effort to design it for minimum weight. That was the transmission they recently installed in VP10 which some early customers have driven. Anyway, it’s clear that Tesla has to put a lot of miles on this transmission before they turn it loose on customers. If they run a car around the clock drive/charge/drive/charge, etc. I expect one car could rack up about 5000 miles a week. How many miles of testing would you be comfortable with?

As I understand it, they got the clutchless transmission to work; but it’s response time was, in the end, not acceptable. Oh, and 0-60 in second gear is under 6 seconds.

Loren Carpenter wrote on November 1st, 2007 at 11:39 am
The transmission has 2 clutches that mechanically isolate the transmission during shifting. They are electro-hydraulically operated by the computer in response to the shift lever setting. When the car starts (powers up) you can hear the hydraulic system pressurizing pump whine a bit.
The new transmission shifts right quick. Way under a second. Zak told me that they are still refining the millisecond choreography of the process.

These comments from Loren seem to me to be accurate, straight from Tesla, and not speculation. The most detailed descriptions of the transmission problems I know of are in the Town Hall Meeting recording and there are several, all related to things becoming unglued under high loads. The fact that Tesla is allowing everyone to drive in 2nd gear suggests to me that the problem is in 1st gear, which makes a lot of sense when you think of the increased loads applied by first gear. I make reference to an automatic transmission because that is the way they work and most people can relate to that. The 1/5 second is just my guess at "way under a second".

The observation made by Loren, that the transmission is very small, is I think the major point. Tesla wanted a small lightweight transmission and maybe they were a little too agressive and should have made it a little larger and stronger. However, Tesla remains confident that they do not have to make it larger, just make some parts stronger and provide better oil flow to some of the 17 bearings. I can't remember just where I picked up on the 17 bearings, but it struck me as an awful lot for just 2 speeds. Three shafts, input, output, and transfer at 2 bearings each. Two clutches, one (possibly 2) bearing each... then I remembered that this was a transaxle with a built in differential and that part takes a bunch of bearings, so 17 is reasonable. Way back last spring there was a problem with spinning bearings in the transmission. At that time Tesla said that they were changing from a magnesium casing to an aluminum casing and they expected that to solve the problem. An engineer wrote in and stated that changing the casing would not solve the problem, and the best solution was glue. I think he even specified the glue to use. I haven't heard any mention of spinning bearings since, just trouble with bearings.

I hope Tesla takes all this talk of transmission problems in the right light. Everyone is making suggestions (some way off mark) because they want to see Tesla succeed, and almost everyone is sympathetic to the problems of bringing a new product to the market. In my view Tesla has taken the most reasonable and low risk approach to the transmission design, and certainly don't think a whole different approach is required. Tesla has done a fabulous job and I fully expect that these transmission problems will be solved by this summer.

Hunter

11:20pm | Jan 6, 2008

To those who speak of fast-charging stations, I have two comments. First, to the guy who thinks we should use gensets, diesel fuel is *way* too expensive to burn for electricity for any high-volume application (OK, except maybe processor fabs), including retail charging of vehicles. But far, far more important is the simple fact that consumers will hardly ever have to use these stations. Everybody seems to miss this, but we're already talking about how the roadster's range handles 90% or more of people's daily driving range....so the only time anyone would need to use one of these fancy fast-charge stations would be on road trips. And then there's the fact that the energy is so much cheaper the profit margin would clearly shrink. Frankly, we just can't support a massive network of stations like we have now when they are only going to do 5-10% of the business, now with smaller margins. Fast charging just won't work with the current "station" model...maybe we can have commercial charging integrated into parking lots and one car side-of-the-road pulloffs (which had better be extremely cheap to build/maintain) but the gas station must die.

Timo

12:31am | Jan 7, 2008

# Roy wrote on January 6th, 2008 at 6:43 pm

## The fact that Tesla is allowing everyone to drive in 2nd gear suggests to me that the
## problem is in 1st gear, which makes a lot of sense when you think of the increased
## loads applied by first gear.

I don't see how first gear creates greater loads than second gear. For both gears engine torque is the same and RPM is the same. If I don't have any basic error in my logic only place where first gear makes greater load is to tires. They burn more easily :-)

In fact if you think of it second gear should create greater strain to the transmission than first because there is more powers fighting back at high speeds.

kert

1:35am | Jan 7, 2008

::Inductive charging. ... This is interesting idea. How would you do that in practice?

The Company Weismann have made Transmision for Formula F1 car and drag racer. They have a new Concept of transmision technic.http://www.weismann.net

"Zeroshift technology is a seamless instantaneous means of changing gear ratios without interrupting the engine torque to the wheels." And the Zeroshift transmision is cheap to produce.http://www.zeroshift.com/transmissions.html

Timo

7:00am | Jan 7, 2008

# charlie wrote on January 6th, 2008 at 12:52 pm

## Here are a few articles you might find interesting and to show alot of people are working
## on this so I do not think it will be a problem.

That is only matter of time, it is not an engineering problem. A123 has already 5 minute charge batteries, they are just lower energy density than Tesla ESS batteries and they cost more because production volumes are so low. New techs are emerging monthly now, and it is hard to predict where it will stop. Fast charge for 50kWh might be quite cheap in near future. (Nanowire 500kWh ESS with 3.5 hour charging time from empty to full would mean only 21 minutes for 50kWh).

Jason M. Hendler

11:54am | Jan 7, 2008

Anyone see the price / stats of Zap's X electric SUV crossover? This is a vehicle for $60,000, has an electric motor in each / all 4 wheels, goes 155 mph and has a range of 350 miles on a charge. Most significantly, the vehicle was engineered by Lotus Engineering.

>> Most significantly, the vehicle was engineered by Lotus Engineering.

No.

Most significantly, the vehicle does not exists at all. It only exists in the form of a drawing and a few words.

Keith Hearn

2:24pm | Jan 7, 2008

I just looked at the Zap-X brochure. It's computer runs Windows. At 155 mph, this gives a new meaning to a "Blue Screen of Death". No thanks.

Keith

Timo

4:31pm | Jan 7, 2008

# kert wrote on January 7th, 2008 at 12:35 am

## ::Inductive charging. … This is interesting idea. How would you do that in practice?

## Like its been done before.
## en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magne_Charge

Nice. There is no example of several kilowatt versions. What I would like to see how big it gets if you make it a lot more powerful.

That "safe even underwater" is definitely very good. Probably _the_ solution for safety issues. From main wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_charging it seems that you could even make that without wires. That would mean that you could just park your car at "parking slot" and get it charged there from charger that is under pavement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiTricity). No wires, no breakable objects, nothing like that. That would solve every single problem right away for safety and complexity of use.

Peter J Hedge

7:07pm | Jan 7, 2008

Re: He's baaaaack!!!!!

Here's Martin's link . . . just in case anyone is interested (heavy sarcasm and large grin as I don't know how to put the smiley faces in)

Timo:
You have the idea but didn't go far enough with it. Yes the tires have to take a larger torque loading in first gear, and assuming they don't slip, if the gear is 2:1 then the torque loading is doubled. This doubled load is applied to the differential and half of the transmission up to the first gear. If you make the assumption that all the extra torque will do is spin the tires, then there is no point in having a lower first gear.

Mark Mandarich

7:51pm | Jan 7, 2008

Keep Up the Great Work!!

CTF

11:45pm | Jan 7, 2008

Regarding complex transmission problems etc.....
I am more convinced than ever that Tesla Motors has been launched at a very opportune moment in a visionary manner. If Tesla can get to a well designed and executed "roller-skate-for-the-masses (RSFM) by 2012, they will change the world...right when it needs to be changed. The lessons learnt on the Roadster (in all its configurations) and Whitestar-in all realms of technology and business and other-could be widely copied and extrapolated in a magnificent loop. This will not be unique. Alternative energy technology and leverage through increased efficiency will also build a bridge, for which there is no alternative. This is a window of opportunity that is offered rarely. The alternative of this vision and its application is intolerable and incomprehensible.

Timo

3:30am | Jan 8, 2008

# Peter J Hedge wrote on January 7th, 2008 at 6:07 pm

## (heavy sarcasm and large grin as I don’t know how to put the smiley faces in)

Basic smiley is just these symbols : - ) without spaces. If you don't know those then you are probably younger than they are :-)

Timo

6:50am | Jan 8, 2008

# Roy wrote on January 7th, 2008 at 6:48 pm

## Timo:
## You have the idea but didn’t go far enough with it. Yes the tires have to take a larger torque
## loading in first gear, and assuming they don’t slip, if the gear is 2:1 then the torque loading
## is doubled. This doubled load is applied to the differential and half of the transmission up to
## the first gear.

With second gear that same load is actually worse, since it tries to spin the wheels in double speed. If it can't then strain is transferred to transmission (but not differential, because halving the torque and doubling the speed is done in transmission).

## If you make the assumption that all the extra torque will do is spin the tires, then
## there is no point in having a lower first gear.

There is no "extra torque" in drivetrain point of view. All torque comes from engine and that is same for both gears. What is different is how fast engine is trying to spin the wheels after transmission, and for second gear that speed is higher, and thus causes more strain in transmission. It is easier to spin wheels slower than it is faster / engine RPM, which causes higher acceleration. In fact you probably end up having Traction Control reducing power for first gear just to prevent unnecessary wheel burning, which makes torque even less for first gear.

In practice the way to destroy ordinary transmission is to pull heavy caravan with too big gear.

Jason M. Hendler

9:38am | Jan 8, 2008

Looks like Zap's crossover vehicle has a fuel cell competitor from Cadillac:

"Looks like Zap’s crossover vehicle has a fuel cell competitor from Cadillac:"

Well, there you go again. Neither of these vehicles is real. And you're still crazy if you think fuel cells are a realistic "competitor."

Jason M. Hendler

12:46pm | Jan 8, 2008

Hunter,

You are crazy to dismiss fuel cell vehicles. I suspect people will maintain their habits of "gassing up" at a fuel station, as opposed to plugging in at home.

Jim

1:20pm | Jan 8, 2008

The severity of TM's problems with the Roadster's transmission re-raises in my mind the question of wheel motors. Is the problem of unsprung weight still worse than the problems with the transmission? If engineering resources were focused on making light and rugged wheel motors, might the impact on handling might be manageable? I'm curious how TM views this question with the added perspective of the transmission problems.

Editor's Answer: Take a look at this post for info about wheel motors and unsprung weight.

Chris

3:12pm | Jan 8, 2008

Hopefully this hasn't been asked before...

Has Tesla ever considered selling two versions of the Roadster? One would have a nice single gear transmission (perhaps the current temporary one) and the other would have the Transmission being developed and/or debugged. I realize that all sales prior to the announcement would have to be the two gear transmission or the owners and Tesla would have to agree to a change in price due to the change in specs (I'm no lawyer, but I assume that would be a potentially nasty can of worms to open).

The reason I ask is that the practice is very common among the other automakers. They sell the same car with two different engines and you can also select automatic or manual transmission. At most they change the letters on the car's name plate to show you got the V8 instead of the V6. Couldn't Tesla do the same? Is Tesla too small to cover the long term support costs for two different transmissions?

Jean Pierre

4:14pm | Jan 8, 2008

I would like to remind a lot of people about another company all gold and glitters. The name of this company was BRE-X. Hopefully my comment will be posted and hopefully this company will not end up being another BRE-X. For some reason, it smells like BRE-X

Max

5:13pm | Jan 8, 2008

Please make sure to add the Tesla Roadster to the upcoming Gran Turismo 5.

This is very important, Gran Turismo is one of the most important games out there, and a great publicity opportunity for Tesla. Not to mention, it will introduce lots of potential buyers to the car.

--
I don't think you should offer 2 versions of the Roadster. At least for now. Better bring some roadsters to market. We're all waiting patiently for them..

Oh, it would also be great if you could make a new blog. Any news for the new year?

Happy 2008 for all of Tesla's employees!!!

May it be a happy and successful one.

-M

P.s.: Love that your company has a sense of humor :) Replaced with "halibut" hehe

Timo: One last try. The motor has a certain maximum torque. The maximum torque at the wheels is if function of the gear ratios between the motor and the wheels. Imagine a heavily loaded truck going up a grade. He needs to apply more torque on the wheels to continue up the grade. Does he shift to a higher or lower gear?

Hunter

6:06pm | Jan 8, 2008

Jason, we had this discussion on the last blog topic and none of your arguments holds water at all. You live in some alternate universe where fuel cells are cheap to make, fuel cell vehicles are practical, and Hydrogen is clean and renewable. You think "greens" (by which you apparently mean just about everyone left of the Bushies) are making up global warming to reduce the influence of oil companies, which you seem to think are benevolent fighters for our personal liberties. You spew libertarian rhetoric about how "the capitalists" do everything worthwhile and government does nothing, you demand that the consumers be allowed to choose between fuel cells and other tech without us "greens" telling them what to do, and then you turn around and justify the government and oil/car companies manipulating the market with massive subsidies. Oh, and meanwhile you play the national security card by claiming we have to have Hydrogen for military applications, shipping, and aviation (ignoring or unfairly libeling other much more suitable fuels), applications for which Hydrogen is even worse suited than personal transportation. Finally, to top it all off you just make up whatever off-the-wall statistics you want and never ever ever cite anything resembling a source. You are grasping at straws. You sound like an oilman astroturfer doing whatever he can to keep people believing in the one "alternative fuel" technology that can't possibly displace his hegemony. For heaven's sake, give it a rest.

To everyone else here: I'm not kidding. Take a look at the discussion on Elon's topic from last month and see if he doesn't honestly try every one of these harebrained arguments. Seriously, claiming that global warming is a vast left-wing conspiracy stopped being at all plausible years ago, and at the very least it doesn't make any sense in the same breath as Hydrogen advocacy. Combine that with the fawning praise of the noble capitalists in the oil industry who have done everything for us, and I think you've got a shill here.

----

Editor's Request: How about a renewed effort to stay on topic?

Daniel Ademu-John

7:06pm | Jan 8, 2008

What was the topic again?..(Ha). TM you better do something quick for your fans or you will not be able to hold them back !!!. They need the EV ... They need change!!!

CTF

9:39pm | Jan 8, 2008

Jean Pierre
I would like to hope you were not burned in that (Bre-X) scam. I very much doubt that sort of thing is going on at Tesla Motors. Tesla represents not so much a pile of wealth as a pile of opportunity to steer our economy onto a wiser path. This opportunity is more in the nature of an immense pile of work to be done rather than a pile of gold to be reaped. Hopefully, profits will come sooner rather than later. Hopefully, production and revenue will mimic more of a technology enterprise than a mature, very mature car making model. The people doing this are now in a private company and all seem to be the types that would know what they are doing and what they are in for-a lot of risk, work and possibility. This is the kind of work we should all be interested in. It will be challenging and with a significant chance of failure , but for all that, a chance for one's efforts to bear fruit through a meaningful, helpful and healthy outcome. Energy independance, environmental improvement, economic rationality, political common sense- all brought about through a reasonably open process of identifying and applying a rational model that will require, again, a lot of hard work. There is no guarantee of success for Tesla, but no kool-aid either. Healthy skepticism is appropriate. Please don't be paranoid though.

Regarding the transmission problems, which seem to be one of the main topics, is the actual problem more related to the High RPM of the first gear heating up and cracking/breaking internal parts more than the 0-60 torque stress issue breaking parts? It seems to me that everyone thinks the transmission breaks because it’s so powerful and has huge torque at 0 RPMS and normal ICE cars have less torque. Well to me that makes no since, because in a sports car you would rev the engine to a high RPM so you have all the torque you need and then you let our the clutch really fast to transfer that power to the transmission and then wheels. My logical thought would be that its thermal dynamics and parts that just get week over long term usage of a high RPM electric motor and not the raw sheer power. This means a single gear transmission would probably solve the issue because the gear ratio would allow for slower moving internal parts however it would not allow for as fast of acceleration. Tesla seems to be driven to prove they will be a true car company and wants to give the buyers the best, most efficient car for their money. Think about it like software. It has bugs, and once each bug is found, programmers will change the code to correct the problems. Same goes with this transmission, so please have faith and give them a little time for modifications and changes. It’s cheaper and faster to fix what they have now then to change out to another design.

Jason M. Hendler

5:27pm | Jan 9, 2008

Hunter,

More details on the fuel cell Cadillac Provoq (PHEV w/ fuel cell RE). It seems it is the same platform as the Chevy Volt (PHEV w/ gasoline RE) and Opel Flextreme (PHEV w/ diesel RE):

What a brilliant approach, matching the RE with the appropriate nameplate - Chevy / gasoline, Opel / diesel, Cadillac / fuel cell - perfect positioning of the RE with the market that could / would desire and afford it.

Hunter

5:59pm | Jan 9, 2008

Milomir, solar cells aren't very well suited to on-vehicle applications because 1)there isn't enough surface area, 2)part of the vehicle is always in shade, and 3) the angles are varied and not ideal. I don't have the numbers on hand, but if you look around on the blogs here (and presumably elsewhere) you'll find it well established that the surface area of a car, even if it collected 100% of the sun's energy (which would mean it would produce 16x the energy of the cells you link) over its whole area, would take a long time (multiple days of full sun) to charge a battery pack of roadster size. It's true that such cells could "top up" a pack, adding tiny bit of charge while you are at work or whatever, but the difference would be unpredictable (and at 6% efficiency, probably too small to even notice), so you wouldn't rely on it for extra range. That leaves the only benefit that it would save power from the grid, and if that's your goal it's a lot cheaper/easier/more efficient to just attach them to your house.

That said, these new panels are a great development for fixed applications, and hopefully with futher improvements we'll see these plastic panels drastically reduce the cost of solar power.

Hunter

10:18pm | Jan 9, 2008

Holy cow, Jason! That's great, that's THREE TIMES as many nonexistent vehicles!

Also, if by "more details" you meant "speculation that they could use dilithium crystals in the E-flex" (seriously) then I suppose you're right. Otherwise, they were the same details from the same GM press release about the same nonexistent car. Anyway, why beat this horse after the editor has already chastised us for straying OT? Here I was holding back and hadn't even mentioned your 100% false description of fascist economics in the other blog topic. Anyway, can we get back to grid power? All this H2 banter is going noplace fast.

----

Editor's Decision: Enough. Please get back on topic! I will delete further sniping.

Please may we introduce ourselves? My name is Dr Ray Heath and I am the global business development manager for Zeroshift. We have designed and implemented many seamless transmissions to date. Our transmission technology is the most efficient in the world which is important for electric vehicles. We can shift seamlessly between gears with no torque interrupt. This gives not only comfortable safe shifts but also performance and fuel economy benefits. We are able to package into the smallest of spaces as confirmed by motorcycle transmissions we have developed. We are able to manage large quantities of torque as confirmed by truck transmissions we have developed.

We confirm that Zeroshift could design and implement a two speed transmission for Tesla Motors.

Kevin Harney

9:08am | Jan 10, 2008

To the Editor:

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU !!!!!! I love reading these blogs but just hate reading the sniping banter that comes with them occassionally. Looking forward to owning one of TM's great products in the very near future :)

Timo

9:40am | Jan 10, 2008

# Roy wrote on January 8th, 2008 at 4:21 pm

## Timo: One last try. The motor has a certain maximum torque. The maximum torque at the
## wheels is if function of the gear ratios between the motor and the wheels. Imagine a heavily
## loaded truck going up a grade. He needs to apply more torque on the wheels to continue up
## the grade. Does he shift to a higher or lower gear?

Lower. This is actually quite good example. Lets make this a bit further: With eMotor you go in same grade and with second gear you go standstill because eMotor can't turn the wheels. Now entire torque load is between tires and eMotor. Then you shift to lower gear and can continue. What happened? eMotor doesn't need to deliver full torque anymore to keep on going. If you still have accelerator in full power-position then engine still delivers full torque and torque load is still full in entire transmission, but it isn't more than engine can deliver. It never is more than engine can deliver. It can't be more than that.

Actually the question is is the weak point before the transmission or after the transmission. With second gear transmission tries to slow down engine with double power (snap point before the gears). With first gear transmission is trying to slow down engine with half the power, but behind the transmission shaft gets double power (snap point after the gears). In both cases engine delivers the same torque, and whole drivetrain has that combined strain.

m cohen

12:13pm | Jan 10, 2008

the link on the home page listed as:

San Mateo County Times
Auto Magazines to Put Tesla Electric Sports Car to the Test

Goes to a dead link, has for weeks now. what's up? Seems like website has been largly neglected lately

Andrew Kelsey

1:10pm | Jan 10, 2008

Timo, I don't know if this helps or not but it's how I understand things from an ic engine and manual gearbox perspective. If you imagine a car with its back wheels set into concrete so they can't move. Put that car into first gear and rev the engine to say 6,000 rpm and bang home the clutch. I'm pretty sure something will break in the drivetrain because you have a lot of leverage with first gear and you can do a lot of damage. Do the exact same procedure with an identical car but with the car in fifth gear. Probably nothing will break because the engine will just stop dead when you lift the clutch (unless it's some massive V8 or V10 or something!) Presumably something similar would apply with the Tesla. You don't have a clutch but the strain on the gearbox and drivetrain will be greater in first gear than in second gear won't it? That's why the car accelerates more quickly in first gear than in second gear, because you're able to apply more of the torque through the drivetrain to the back wheels than you can in any other gear because of the lower gearing.

Timo

6:21am | Jan 11, 2008

# Andrew Kelsey wrote on January 10th, 2008 at 12:10 pm

## Timo, I don’t know if this helps or not but it’s how I understand things from an ic engine and
## manual gearbox perspective. If you imagine a car with its back wheels set into concrete so they
## can’t move.

With second gear tires are slowing engine with double power. It is not the same as embbedding tires in concrete, but it is causing more strain to engine-end of the gearbox.

## Put that car into first gear and rev the engine to say 6,000 rpm and bang home the clutch.
## I’m pretty sure something will break in the drivetrain because you have a lot of leverage
## with first gear and you can do a lot of damage.

Of course. It will snap someplace.

## Do the exact same procedure with an identical car but with the car in fifth gear. Probably nothing
## will break because the engine will just stop dead when you lift the clutch (unless it’s some massive
## V8 or V10 or something!) Presumably something similar would apply with the Tesla.

Not quite. eMotor delivers max torque at zero RPM. That means that even that engine will stop, it wont stop it trying to spin the wheels. Now, if the weak point of the transmission is between engine and transmission this is the time it will break. In this case first gear would probably break that same spot, because it can't turn the wheels, but if there is weaker spot in somewhere after the gearbox like in differential then first gear will destroy differential instead of gearbox because twice the power got thru gearbox. Second gear would cause less strain there, but it gets double strain between engine and gearbox compared to first gear, and if there is something that can break there it will break more easily with second than with first.

## You don’t have a clutch but the strain on the gearbox and drivetrain will be greater in first gear
## than in second gear won’t it?

No, because that torque load comes from engine, and engine is the same with both gears. It is just question how it gets divided and where.

## That’s why the car accelerates more quickly in first gear than in second gear, because you’re
## able to apply more of the torque through the drivetrain to the back wheels than you can in any
## other gear because of the lower gearing.

You said it yourself there _thru_ the drivetrain to wheels. With second gear half of that power stops at gearbox. With first it gets thru. That is why I said it might well be that gearbox strain is actually bigger with second gear than first.

This is like pushing car to start with manual gearbox. Engine runs easier with second gear than with first because it gets double (or whatever the gear ratios were) power to engine.

Andrew Kelsey

10:50am | Jan 11, 2008

Timo, surely this is all about torque. A car will accelerate from rest faster in first gear than in second gear because the lower gearing enables you to apply more torque to the back wheels. If there is more torque at the back wheels there is also more torque acting on all the transmission parts in between the engine (or motor) and the back wheels. Where exactly that torque is likely to do damage depends on the particular design of the transmission but whichever way you slice it, accelerating from rest you are more likely to do damage in first gear than second, because of the extra torque being applied to most parts of the drivetrain. On the Tesla it all depends on where the damage is being done and what kind of damage it is. If it's just wearing something out very quickly it may have more to do with the high revs of the motor than with the torque, so that might even be irrelevant.
You said: ##With second gear half of that power stops at gearbox. With first it gets thru.
If the power gets through the gearbox then all of the components in the gearbox (after the reduction takes place) are experiencing that power.

I don't claim any expertise in this and I'm not an engineer. I'm just using my own simple logic to try and understand the situation. To be honest I'm kind of bored talking about it as neither of us actually has any real details of the problem Tesla are experiencing, and we can't get those details, so it's all rather theoretical and pointless, don't you think?

Roy Penuela

4:30pm | Jan 11, 2008

Dear Mr. Drori:

Today, I read an article in the Wall Street Journal, entitled "Race to Make Electric Cars Stalled by Battery Problems" (WSJ, 01/11/2008, pp. A1-A9.) The article stated, "For all the hoopla, nobody yet has figured out how to make a small enough battery that will hold a big enough charge for these new cars -- and not be a risk to burst into flames." (p. A1.) "But the most promising technology lithium-ion batteries like the ones used in laptop computers and cellphones, has been plagued by problems." (p. A9.) The article continued, "Earlier this week, for example, the battery in a laptop made by a South Korean firm burst into flames. U.S. transportation authorities rececently said air travelers will no longer be allowed to pack loose lithium-ion batteries in checked luggage." (p. A9). In the article Tim Spitler of Altair Nanotechnologies, "which is working to develop a car battery," was quoted as saying, "Car makers can't very well sell vehicles that might 'ignite and burn up grandma and two kids sitting on half a ton of batteries in the car.'" (p. A9) Although the artilce did not mention the Tesla roadster, the car does appear to use the same lithium-ion battery technology as the other car manufacturers. Is the Tesla roadster safe? Why did not the Wall Street Journal reporter mention Telsa as an exception to the other car manufactuers' problems saying that Tesla is not plagued with similar battery problems?

Daniel Ademu-John

6:02pm | Jan 11, 2008

Roy Penuela,
So what are you trying to say? Are you trying to say that TM real problem is the batteries and everything else is a cover up? This is the real reason for TM's delay?

Roy Penuela

9:37pm | Jan 11, 2008

Daniel Ademu-John

I am not saying there is a cover-up. I am only inquiring about safety in TESLA's roadster with respect to its lithium-ion batteries because of what I read in the January 11, 2008 Wall Street Journal article, entitled "Race to Make Electric Cars Stalled by Battery Problems." (WSJ, 01/11/2008, pp. A1, A9.) DId you even read the article? Since TESLA appears to be using the same battery technology as reported in the WSJ article, I would like to know is there something special about TESLA's batteries that make them immune to the battery problems reported by the Wall Street Journal? If TESLA's batteries are special, why was that fact not reported in the article?

EETIM

10:34pm | Jan 11, 2008

The WSJ article does not mention Tesla - which as Penuela says, is rather peculiar. Is Tesla having the same problems, or is Tesla above these problems?

There is no question that stringing together 6,800 Lithium-Cobalt 18650 (LiCoO2) batteries together in an ESS pack with heating and cooling, given the safety record of LiCo (same batteries as in Laptops) is not an easy task. But how come Tesla has little to say about this?

Could it be that what Drori says "transmission is a primary source of our problem" simply means that the ESS is another source of problems, and the DOT bureaucracy may be related to that?

And how come nobody from Tesla has anything to say about Lithium-Phosphate (LiFePO4) batteries (A123, Valence, lots of chinese manufacturers, etc.). LiPhos batteries do not have a safety issue catching on fire, do not overheat, they operate at 80% capacity as cold as -20 celsius (and probably will quickly heat up to operating temperature). Nano LiPhos also charge in a matter of minutes - unlike LiCo which will require half a day of charging to fill up.

LiPhos batteries can be recharged 3,000 to 5,000 times, and A123 LiPhos batteries have tens of times more power than LiCo, making the whole transmission issue moot, as you can do away with the transmission altogether (actually in order to cut on noise and wear and tear, a 2 speed transmission WITH CLUTCH is still desirable - Any bean counter, paper pusher lawyer, literature/arts majors or other freeloaders who does not know how to enjoy a CLUTCH should be prohibited from owning a Tesla by law. Teslas are meant for Engineers and Scientists who enjoy the clutch and who are the real producers of wealth in society).

The only known issue with Nano-LiPhos is 1- cost may be higher for the nano version, but will certainly drop due to volume, and 2- energy density is about 55% of LiCo. But 95% of drives are less than 100 miles. So why not offer a 25 KWh LiPhos pack at the same weight as a LiCo. Especially that LiPhos can be fully recharged in 15 minutes (with high-amp circuits)?

On the other hand I read that GM Volt's contract with A123 prohibits A123 selling high density 32157 batteries to anybody but GM. So there is a problem here. But then Tesla could use A123 32113 low-density batteries or their older 26650 batteries.

It would be nice to get a heads up on this issue. The WSJ article has raised the stakes and silence reduces confidence.

CTF

11:49pm | Jan 11, 2008

EETIM says
" Any bean counter, paper pusher lawyer, literature/arts majors or other freeloaders who does not know how to enjoy a CLUTCH should be prohibited from owning a Tesla by law. "

I am just wounded to my soul....... I will cry now........But still.... I will buy a Tesla if ever I can reap ill gotten gains as whatever-all (he?) just called me. And I will ENJOY driving it, no matter the bells nor whistles involved...even if all I have is playing "Born To Be Wild" as I jam it up the on -ramp.

This touches on a serious point
Most posters here are ....well.... Gear Heads. And that is Cool.
Tesla will be (thankfully) selling into a "car culture" and that entails a beast (which included me up until about setting ignition points but not much further) called the Shade Tree Mechanic
What is to become of that player in the absence of complicated carboraters, turbochargers, massive hood scoops, screaming -insane-decibel-burnouts, flaming -eruption crashes? Well, not that last one,
but how to seamlessly as possible
sell a differant kind of car?
discuss amongst yourselves

EETIM

2:03am | Jan 12, 2008

I don't think Engineers, Scientists, and Entrepreneurs, who are the real producers of wealth in society, and who carry a brain on their shoulders, are interested in talking about fuzzy conceptual, reified, ephemeral, and overrationalized stuff such as "culture".

The universe is not about us or our culture. Nobody out there gives a damn about our predilections. If naval gazing is your cup of tea, then don't drive a Tesla. We should get over ourselves and we should not take us humans so seriously. The universe is not about us - never was.

Culture is for the sissies and the whoosies who couldn't understand Physics 101 and never had the privilege to see the beauty in Schroedinger's wavefunction, and ended up in Cultural Studies as an easy ride into the mega-corp-monopole corporate hierarchy or government/NGO social jobs. We, on the other hand, like to talk about stuff that comes with equations and real costs and real benefits - not simply perceptual and unempirical "values".

Just kidding - NOT

Its about the drive, the technology, the science behind it including the mechanics of motion. The tinkerer that you talk about will find a way to hack into Tesla's microprocessors and enjoy real time software tuning, with one hand on the steering wheel and another hand on the wireless joystick. Tesla is not about carburetion or body flares or hood scoops - Tesla is about a state of a higher mind (oops, I meant "a higher state of mind").

Andrew Kelsey

7:09am | Jan 12, 2008

##EETIM wrote on January 11th, 2008 at 9:34 pm There is no question that stringing together 6,800 Lithium-Cobalt 18650 (LiCoO2) batteries together in an ESS pack with heating and cooling, given the safety record of LiCo (same batteries as in Laptops) is not an easy task. But how come Tesla has little to say about this?

Hi EETIM, Tesla has plenty to say about the batteries. If you go to the top of the page and click on the MORE button and then click on WHITE PAPERS you'll find this: http://www.teslamotors.com/display_data/TeslaRoadsterBatterySystem.pdf
It should tell you all you need to know. There are no guarantees of 100% safety for any car but it certainly looks to me like they've taken every possible precaution and I would feel quite safe to travel in a Tesla.

Andrew Kelsey

7:18am | Jan 12, 2008

##Roy Penuela wrote on January 11th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
##If TESLA’s batteries are special, why was that fact not reported in the article?

There seems to be some assumption here that journalists (financial journalists at that!) are perfect paragons of virtue who would never miss some detail out of an article through lack of research or lack of space or lack of understanding or lack of relevance or whatever. The answer to your question is that the guy knows much less about the subject than you think....he's just a journalist. The batteries in the Tesla are not so special but the way they have incorporated them into the ESS is different and special and hopefully will prevent any major disasters even if a cell heats up and burns. The pack is designed to cope with this and has been tested and found to work. See the White Paper mentioned in my post above.

Andrew Kelsey

7:57am | Jan 12, 2008

More info on Tesla's ESS battery pack here: http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/?p=59
You could find this for yourself by going to TOUCH at the top of this page and then to the article on the Most Coddled Battery Ever by Erik Toomre.

Daniel Ademu-John

10:01am | Jan 12, 2008

TM really really need to bring at least 5 cars early and GIVE it to the first five or so owners that have paid AS SOON AS POSSIBLE (with in weeks hopefully). This will be the only way to calm down the TM car owners. The idea of holding these cars for another 3 to 6 months (or even longer) due to transmission problems is just not going to fly anymore. I am a huge electric car fan for over 20 yrs before it was even cool but TM has to understand that this is a PR issue and have to get some cars out as fast as possible. The 100 + people who have already paid for this car understand that new cars comming out of the line will have bugs. Lastly, if you do not feed your fans they will get hungry. You get hungry you start to get upset!! ... Food for thought

Well I guess iIasked for that EETIM. I respect engineering/mathematical types, perhaps even more for lacking many of the abilities they enjoy. I would argue though that the Universe IS about us. It is about how we can learn and understand and apply the phenomena of existence. This does get to a fuzzy and perhaps spiritual area and one of these is sales. The only reason any for-profit firm ever fails is lack of sales. One of the failures of the first feeble efforts in EV's in this country was an extremely lackluster marketing effort. The mind set required to get a prospect to become a customer has an immense amount to do with culture and the easiest pool to sell these cars to will be your culture. These are cutting edge machines and will have an allure for engineer types and then down the continuum through your joystick manipulator to the bimbo that thinks it's cute and wants to save the butterflies. These consumers, all these consumers create wealth.

Timo

2:32pm | Jan 12, 2008

# Andrew Kelsey wrote on January 11th, 2008 at 9:50 am

## You said: ##With second gear half of that power stops at gearbox. With first it gets thru.

## If the power gets through the gearbox then all of the components in the gearbox (after the
## reduction takes place) are experiencing that power.

Actually that I don't think so. Let me explain how I see this: With second gear parts after the gearbox are trying to slow engine more, and that means that gearbox gets more strain. If all that power gets thru it means that gearbox is _not_ experiencing that power, but differential and tires are.

For a moment stop thinking about gears and gear ratios. Think about straight shaft with some cogwheels in a place of gearbox.

Then think of clear path to tires (first gear). Then apply a force to rear wheels that slow your acceleration to half (second gear). Now which of those cause more strain to those cogwheels? This is my logic behind this armwrestling I'm having with you.

## To be honest I’m kind of bored talking about it as neither of us actually has any real details
## of the problem Tesla are experiencing, and we can’t get those details, so it’s all rather
## theoretical and pointless, don’t you think?

Timo, just imagine if you really wanted to break the transmission on somebody's car.....a cheating wife for example! Would you put the car in first gear and bang the clutch out really hard or would you put it in fifth gear? Depending on the strength of the car you might have to do this quite a few times before something breaks in first gear but with fifth gear you'll just stall the engine every time.
Anyway, I'll stop now as the editor will be stopping us soon anyway!

Hope you'll soon fix and make durable transmission, and car range is superior ;)
It'll be nice to see Tesla Roadsters in spring 2008! :)

Best Regards,
Johan

Jered

10:03pm | Jan 12, 2008

Ze'ev,

Encouraging words; thanks for the update.

Would you please care to comment on Martin Eberhard's comments over at his blog? In his words, it sounds like since taking over you've fired nearly everyone critical to the success of the company. I hope this isn't the case, but such strong accusations surely deserve a clear and decisive response?

Regards,
--Jered

Ron Beaulieu

10:12pm | Jan 12, 2008

from Phoenix , I think your progress is wounderful . but your comments reguarding the city block long house come to mind .
greed has been the oil issues . This car is an inexpensive car to produce , the costs are in the R &D and setup . Involving a community to inovate with will display an example for the rest of the country . adapting to elec technoligy ,so many small details . not every one has a garage to charge up in the evening . but parking meters come to mind A receptical on a parking meter with an credit card reader ?.
Mac donalds , same as the parking meter ,stop fo lunch and charge up your car at the same time . long range A small onboard
gas or E85 generator for Emg backup or until the country adapts . Need to inovate to the family car passenger car capasity before elec will go's anyware . It does not do us any good if you produce some elec cars sell them for to much money to collectors that store them in a garage and never use them . Keep up the great work , Remember save the world from big oil

M. Cohen

1:16pm | Jan 13, 2008

thanks for the link Jered, i guess that answers my question. I hadn't realized so much had changed at Tesla

WarpedOne

4:45pm | Jan 13, 2008

Editor’s comment:

This comment was deleted because it served no purpose other than a personal attack. Please chill out or take it somewhere else.

Mark

11:53am | Jan 14, 2008

Ze'ev,
Rumors have started up that the White Star project has been permantly suspended. This and many other questions have begun circulating. I hate rumors and I try not to fall victim to listening to them. But in a vacum of any information from an official source... well... it is difficult not to get depressed.
You mentioned an announcement regarding the White Star in 2008. Could I plead for that to be sooner rather than later;) Last fall I was ready to put down the full estimated purchase price of a White Star. Now doubts are creeping in. Please help squash those doubts;-)

I'm worried about Tesla. I think we need an update soon. Hopefully a positive one.

Tod G. Collins

2:56pm | Jan 14, 2008

At the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Fisker Automotive of Irvine CA is making a big splash with its announcement of their forthcoming Fisker Karma Sport Sedan. They predict deliveries in the fourth quarter 2009.
At the same time there is not one word from Tesla Motors about the Whitestar, nor did Tesla even bother to show up in Detroit.
One begins to wonder whether the Whitestar isn't really vaporware as has been suggested by some of the automotive media.
I agree with Mark: "Please help squash those doubts".
Should we potential Whitestar purchasers start looking elsewhere for a high end environmentally friendly sport sedan?
Tod G. Collins, Orcas Island

Please update us. Please say whether or not you're not doing a hybrid. Please don't copy the Volt. GM will eat you alive, if not they, then Toyota will. Electric cars is a successful niche that Tesla has carved out for themselves. They should stick to it.

-As a mathematician and a chemist I take exception to EETIM’s statements about culture.
I really hate it when scientific intellectual elitists criticize literary intellectual elitists.
Yes, they are wrong, and the universe is an immense and mathematically beautiful thing which spines and dances irregardless of human activity, it’s not about us. However, by the same token it is not about are understanding of the universe either. Science and mathematics are just as irrelevant to the cosmos as art and culture. The only thing that excites you and inspires you is equations? That’s fine, but don’t try to justify your preference by saying it is some how better then every one else’s, or the only logical way to be. Science and math are important because they effect how we can live are lives (what we can do), but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with enjoying other things. Shelve the attitude.
-CTF make a good point about branding. The image of the product in a culture is a big part of what determines is value in are society. Wealth or values has no existence independent of “culture” it is a social construct or agreement between people that something is worth a specified amount, are economy can not function without this idea, and Tesla would be foolish to ignore it, which thankfully they are not.
-Which brings me to my main point, I would like to see the Tesla brand grow to become a major part of are automotive industry, because I believe that eclectic cars are the future of transportation, at least in the US. I know that I can not afford a Roadster, but I’m greatly looking forward to their second model which I might very well go for, and especially to there 3ed model which I would defiantly buy. I’m encouraged by their stated business plan of putting all money back into development to hurry these vehicles, as it is the “ignorant masses” which generate the most value in a society (by sheer numbers), and for Tesla Motors to make the biggest impact they must go main stream, which means bringing down the price.

M. Cohen

12:15am | Jan 15, 2008

for the first time since i first heard of Tesla Motors, i have a bad feeling things are about to crumble....Might have to settle for whatever EV Honda or Nissan can come up with. :(

I commend your open communication in a difficult launch and believe this is the way to move forward to ensure you get the product correct. I have been involved in many product development programs and launches in the automotive industry and it is never easy! Getting it right is key for a new product launch and time will pass, but launch at the wrong time will do permenant dammage, it is tough to balance these issues. I would like to offer up my expertise in managing this challenging time for Tesla Motors, you will get it right.

Dave B

9:46am | Jan 15, 2008

I agree with Max, do not copy the Volt. Bring us a simple, nice looking, affordable sedan which is capable of highway speeds and is SAFE. You'll have even more success than with the Roadster.

Daniel Ademu-John

11:34am | Jan 15, 2008

I agree with all of the above TM keep it simple no hybrids please. In fact one thing at a time just get the Roadster out first (as you so plan). I can not afford the Roadster but I do not care. This is about the tote of the EV so that people can see this car has serious performances (cream of the crop for ALL vehicles yet green). TM you have a niche high-end market!!... Keep it let Toyota and GM worry about the mass market. I am a manufacturing engineer for Honda and trust me the "dime and a dozen business" is a whole different world.

This might help you for you next model (whitestar) or for mid model year update to the roadster 2010 model maybe?

Jeffrey

1:18pm | Jan 15, 2008

Here is a behind the scenes look at Tesla Motors. Some people may have missed this footage. I would also like to add that I'm still rooting for you guys. Lets face it, Tesla must get the roadster out of the gate and soon. Anyway you guys already know this, I just wanted to reinforce its importance regardless. Also I don't buy the sell out rumor, Elon isn't that stupid I hope.

Tod G. Collins wrote on January 14th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
At the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Fisker Automotive of Irvine CA is making a big splash with its announcement of their forthcoming Fisker Karma Sport Sedan. They predict deliveries in the fourth quarter 2009.
At the same time there is not one word from Tesla Motors about the Whitestar, nor did Tesla even bother to show up in Detroit.
One begins to wonder whether the Whitestar isn’t really vaporware as has been suggested by some of the automotive media.
I agree with Mark: “Please help squash those doubts”.
Should we potential Whitestar purchasers start looking elsewhere for a high end environmentally friendly sport sedan?
Tod G. Collins, Orcas Island

I too saw this and am intrigued. Whitestar competition. My mind has been sold on a Whitestar for quite some time now but i would seriously consider this even though it is not pure EV if it comes out first. I would note that they said SALES would begin in fourth 1/4 of 2009 not delivery. Hopefully you will give us something on the Whitestar soon :) Glad to see that things are progressing - even if it is slow - on the Roadster. Any delivery dates for them yet? Not counting #1 LOL and any dates on the unveiling of the looks of the Whitestar. These would be well sought after posts !!!! and big confidence builders :)

doug

5:02pm | Jan 15, 2008

Lotus in England ? ... nothing happens fast in England, nothing. 5-8 weeks holidays...etc ... and they're the king's of excuses... which i shouldn't complain about since its the reason I got posted there years ago ..Good Luck...

As a potential WhiteStar cutomer, I'd say "Prove it to me first." I was going to wait for it, but now I'm not so sure.

When you get the vehicle in the showroom, then let us know. (It's not like you're giving us status updates on WhiteStar, or anything, so I won't miss much.)

But don't be surprised if I buy something else in the meantime.

Rob

7:09pm | Jan 15, 2008

I think everyone should relax. Elon has the cash to make anything happen, Ze'ev knows what he is doing, so please give these guys some time to manufacture and ship the cars. You will see them very soon on the road, and then once again there will be a media frenzy for a month as they drive around. Then you will probably see the WhiteStar. I’m sure they are waiting to be 110% sure on the specs of this car as to not over promise on anything this time. Lesson Learned!

Chuck

12:56am | Jan 16, 2008

Tim,
Where did you read that "GM Volt’s contract with A123 prohibits A123 selling high density 32157 batteries to anybody but GM"?

EETIM wrote on January 11th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
On the other hand I read that GM Volt’s contract with A123 prohibits A123 selling high density 32157 batteries to anybody but GM. So there is a problem here. But then Tesla could use A123 32113 low-density batteries or their older 26650 batteries.

Ladson Isaac

1:04am | Jan 16, 2008

I think the fans and members would like to read more about the progress of the various projects within the company. Two weeks without a blog update is out of the ordinary. Your muteness may be construed as an indicator that things are not going well. Are things going well?

Andrew Kelsey

11:17am | Jan 16, 2008

##doug wrote on January 15th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Lotus in England ? … nothing happens fast in England, nothing. 5-8 weeks holidays…etc … and they’re the king’s of excuses… which i shouldn’t complain about since its the reason I got posted there years ago ..Good Luck…

Hey Doug, thanks for dropping by to insult the English. I lived in the States for a while and I've gotta tell you I didn't notice a great difference in efficiency. With regard to the Tesla delays they're related mainly to problems with the gearbox which wasn't supplied or specified by Lotus as far as I know. Lotus are without doubt one of the most experienced sub contractors and consultants in the automotive game. There aren't many large manufacturers who haven't used them at some time or another, which I'm guessing is partly why Tesla chose them and it sort of implies that they're not too inefficient.

Pete

1:01pm | Jan 16, 2008

First, kudos to TM for not censoring this blog! Second, giving the community some information on whitestar would be a great way to get some positive buzz. Any chance on a whitestar blog post?

David R

3:02pm | Jan 16, 2008

##Pete wrote on January 16th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
First, kudos to TM for not censoring this blog! Second, giving the community some information on whitestar would be a great way to get some positive buzz. Any chance on a whitestar blog post?

Pete, don't forget the previous Silicon Valley faux-pax that destroyed a company when they announced a product 4 months before it was ready: The Osborne computer (circa 1984) sold like hotcakes, then they announced a "new" model. Trouble was it wasn't in prodution yet. So everyone stopped buying the old model and waited for the new. Then the cash flow dried up, so they couldn't get the new model off the production line because there was no money to buy the tooling and hire the people to make it. Then the company totally died.

Oops.

Right now TM is in a world of hurt with the delayed deliveries of the Roadster with a single-speed tranny and the negative press circulating about the staff layoffs. I've gone from excited to a very skeptical "show me the goods" mentality. So no matter how much they talk about WhiteStar, if there's no hardware to show me I'm not going to believe anything they tell me on a blog.

If they can deliver a sedan, great. If not, that's OK too as I'm no longer going to plan on WhiteStar to be delivered anywhere close to on time in 2010, or even 2012. And as I only buy a new car every 10 to 12 years, I might miss out on the WhiteStar altogether if it slips much longer than that. Oh well. . . .

Max

9:52pm | Jan 16, 2008

I think Tesla's in trouble..

I just saw the Fisker Karma (www.fiskerautomotive.com) and it's gorgeous!!
If the whitestar is a hybrid,/REEV it will fight an uphill battle. Let's face it, Henrik Fisker is one of the most talented designers out there. And that car will ship very soon.

Daniel Ademu-John

8:43am | Jan 17, 2008

Yes... I have seen the Fisker it is cool . I think TM should just be lean and stick to the roadster and be good at it! Once they start to make a profit may be start expanding. Again TM stick to the roadster do not be like the GM's EV1 and loose your market

Jeffrey

10:38am | Jan 17, 2008

If Tesla decides to REEV their electric vehicle designs might it be possible to skip right to original Bluestar pricing at 30,000 - 40,000? I personally feel the REEV concept has serious potential and Tesla should aggressively tackle that car design. Maybe you already are : )? How many people ever exceed say 40 - 60 miles average range? Your mission remains the same even with REEV. A much larger audience will be able to enjoy the benefits of all-electric transportation 100 % of the time minus long distance. I think its great. I think you guys should go for it. Here is a suggestion. Keep improving upon roadster architecture annually and continue classes of cars in that price range. Take a two prong approach. Once you get up to speed offer a second model that would appeal to your Bluestar audience so as to pull in the masses. BUT, avoid building a BEV bluestar , simply focus strictly on Bluestar REEV. You can appeal to the masses through Bluestar REEV much sooner than Bluestar BEV. Do to limited resources of any startup Tesla should not waste energy pursuing BEV "and" REEV, simply go with the REEV. Time is money. At this point I'd respect a radical shift in agenda. The future is not set in stone. Go REEV Tesla. I was all for BEV originally but as of where we stand presently REEV will take you to your mission much sooner. This company needs to get its act in gear. Hey I hope maybe you guys might find a place for Martin in the future. Comeon, he was great. I know you probably won't be able to respond back to this question but it is definately worth a shot and my time. Is there even a slight possibility Martin may be invited to jump on board again or not? Hey I respect/applaud your feedback whether or not I agree with it.

Howie

11:15am | Jan 17, 2008

The first double A NiMh batteries were rated at 1500 milliamps per hour. Now they're nearly double that. Most likely, small lithium-ion batteries will soon have greater storage capacity. So, let's get the Tesla Roadster on the road with that cooled battery assembly, as is. The vehicle can only get better. It's the best in the world right now --it doesn't use gasoline!!! The same should apply to all future Tesla autos.

mark

1:05pm | Jan 17, 2008

Tesla can't make a profit with a hybrid and at low price point yet. They don't have anywhere near the volume to do it economically and they don't have anywhere near the breadth of car models to be all things to all people. A large car company can develop a platform and have several different models based on that platform shared across brands etc... that help amortize the development required to create a new car.

As was mentioned earlier, parts cost Tesla 2-3 times what they cost a large car company to manufacture. A REEV would require too much development outside their "sweet zone" and complicate the regulations and worked involved. Toyota is the only company so far who has made a profit with hybrids. GM may well be able to turn a profit with the VOLT, but it will cost them far less to manufacture than Tesla could.

Tesla needs to follow the business model they have already embraced and stick to the high end performance market that allows them differentiation in this market and the ability to charge a higher price. Then they need to deal with mass production without leaning on Lotus as much, and they have to drive volume up to a level where they have enough volume and can negotiate the lower prices for parts, etc.. etc..

This is a chicken - eqq issue. They need volume to drop prices, and they need to have lower prices to get volume. Ironically selling their drive trains to other manufactures would both help them become profitable, but hurt their future chances of increasing marketshare, since it will drop the price of the part that they have control over, but allow other manufacturers who can build the rest of the car much cheaper to compete.

The bottom line is that Tesla needs to maintain differentiation long enough to grow large enough to compete head on.

Max

2:48pm | Jan 17, 2008

Are we going to get a new blog post sometime soon? Even about test drives.. anything.

I need to register an objection to the "135 MPG Equivalent" statement on your home page. I have similar problems with GM and the X-Prize people, among others. Accordingly, I am posting to you a copy with parenthetical comments:

Posted to GM blog Jan 17,2008
Horrors, I looked at the specs (for the Volt -- see link at bottom) released Jan 7, 2007. The snake oil salesmen are back. Do we really have to pass a law regulating motor vehicle and global warming emissions claims. Maybe we could let the FDA do the job. That would sure expedite things.

"Why," you might ask,"do you say such mean things?"
And I say, "because the spec tries to confuse the public by using the term 'equivalent mpg'."
This is not literally dishonest, since 'equivalent mpg' is not really defined. The fault is only an intent to mislead, or possibly, really not understanding what you are talking about.
In the spec for the Volt, a careful look will turn up the likelihood that 'equivalent mpg' really relates only to the gasoline and the word 'equivalent' does not relate to energy in general, as you might suppose. Thus, it completely ignores the equivalent electric energy part. "Why do you care," you might ask. I say, "because it results in a false implication about the overall energy usage and the global warming implications. Shame on GM"
GM is not alone in this. Others that seem to have an intent to mislead, have come up with 'mpg+' which is gibberish and 'MPGe' which stands for 'miles per gallon equivalent' which seems to stand for something related to the fact that electricity has to be recognized as a form of energy.
Unfortunately,the problem with the way 'MPGe' is used is also indefinite, since it depends on how the electricity was produced. It takes more than four letters to deal with this.
A convenient way to handle this 'MPGe' ambiguity is to ignore the process of electricity generation and the generally required heat engine and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, where such details dictate an enormous loss of energy, given the way power is usually generated in fossil fuel power plants.
Now, if we are only considering electricity that falls from the sky, such as hydro, solar, wind, (lets also include) geothermal, the MPGe formulation can be justified as honest. But it sure is misleading, since there is not much chance of electricity from these sources getting into the car batteries. I hope GM can dig up someone that remembers enough freshman physics to come up with a forthright way to specify the critical aspects of auto performance.
Once I get through to the truth it seems that there is a good design here, and I am not against progress in small steps.

I hope Tesla finds a more appropriate spec statement so as not to also foul the water for future developments.

Best regards, Jim Bullis

Davedaxx

1:12am | Jan 18, 2008

I found this bit about the Volt

""Among G.M.'s commitments to the union was a promise to build the Chevrolet Volt, a hybrid-electric car, in its Hamtramck, Mich., plant, beginning in 2010. G.M. has said production of the car could start a year later,"

They are not even starting the changeover until 2010. large scale won't be until 2011.

I would guess that the demand for the Tesla coupe could be as high as 500,000 to 1,000,00 units in the first 4 years or so. Even after that point there is only one product that might be in the same class. Sales will be vary good for some time.

The race is if Tesla can make a profit and then get some major financing to make White Star and get to large scale production before GM has two or three volt type models out. With only one model That leaves many slots to be filled by a number of different designs, choose well and Tesla can sell all the cars it can make to at least 2015 or so.

GM does not have a price advantage in all areas of production. They have huge finance cost and a giant health care and union labor cost. They may get that fender for $80.00 but before they get it on the car they got $400.00 in it.

Sales of big SUV's will be no better in two years and GM will have huge wright downs if they have to close plants, which they will.

The volt will be popular , I'm sure GM would like to under cut the White Star and try to kill Tesla before they can get to large scale but they will need money really bad by then.

I would guess in a down market the smaller , cheaper GM cars will be the big sellers for GM but they don't make any money with them.

So they will have raise their price of the Volt. They say $30,000 now but I bet you will have to pay $40,000 for the first few years, leaving lots of room for a Tesla to enter the market.

So the White Star need to be around $40k or less to be competitive.

charlie

1:18am | Jan 18, 2008

Jim

I never thought the 135 MPG equivelant had anything to do with global warming at all.
Everything I read led me to see it is a comparison of cost to drive.

The global warming would is discussed more in the well to wheel calculations and is clearly stated on the paper I can not find that it depends on the sourced of the electricity.http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/well_to_wheel.php
There was a more complete environmental paper but I can not find it.

ThomasJ

4:58am | Jan 18, 2008

Jim Bullis, the negative tone of your comment is not going to win you a lot of friends.

Tesla had a white paper explaining exactly how they calculated their number, but it is not available now and that webpage says it's being revised. It included the enitire end-to-end path of both electricity and gasoline. While ranting about how electricty is generated, keep in mind that gasoline does not just spring up magically from the ground, fully refined, right at the gas station. There is a great deal of energy required to extract, refine, and transport oil. You may also want to consider the $10 million per hour that the US spends in Iraq on a war that, according to Alan Greenspan, is "largely about oil".

I disagree completely with your assertion about non-fossil fuel generated electricty, "there is not much chance of electricity from these sources getting into the car batteries".

More people are installing solar and wind power everyday, and in my state, a significant portion of the electricty is generated by nuclear power, which does not produce CO2. A local utility has started the process of adding the first new nuclear power plant in the US in decades.

I personally intend to power my Tesla Roadster with solar power, as do many other buyers. That's what makes electric autos so much better, There are many ways to generate electrical power, there are very few ways to create gasoline.

This argument, that electricity is inherently "dirty" and therefore should not be used, has come up over and over and over..
Please read this fine report produced by the Argonne National Laboratory and GM: http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/339.pdf

Daniel Ademu-John

10:42am | Jan 18, 2008

ThomasJ I agree with you 100%... Jim Bullis oil does not fall from the skys either (or spit out the ground). With 65% oil imported you have to consider the cost of labour to bring the oil to the pump ($3.00/Gal) and the cost of the war .

Mark

11:23am | Jan 18, 2008

Jim, count me as one of the people that will be charging my Tesla with solar power.
True, not everyone will. But your comments are undeserved, Tesla has done a wonderful job showing every step of the calculations.
As I recall, the equivalent gas mileage is a required number from the EPA.
The white paper should be back soon:)

Pete

12:05pm | Jan 18, 2008

David R, I don't think the analogy with Osborne Computer holds up. There is no demand problem for the Tesla Roadster. If they had the next few YEARS of production capacity in the showroom tomorrow they would not have any problems selling them. Talking about whitestar will not hurt roadster sales in the same way talking about the new Honda accord does not hurt Honda's s2000 roadster sales. If anything, it will increase roadster sales because of the increased media interest in Tesla will bring both audiences to evaluate the unique value propostion of the Roadster.

Ancion

2:14pm | Jan 18, 2008

I am desappointed that we can not find any articles concerning the Tesla manufacturing on the Lotus website? I am hoping that they will repair this strategic error.

Giorgis

11:34pm | Jan 18, 2008

Is it possible that gearbox issues are but a disguise of the real problem. I thought that when they were claiming on the town hall meeting MP3 that they one of the reasons they can't get off the shelf gearboxes is that need a high efficiency one as if standard cars don't strive for efficiency and don't mind hot gear boxes

G

Earl

1:52pm | Jan 19, 2008

Giorgis,
The concern with gearbox efficiency that they mentioned at the Town Hall meeting pertained to industrial electrical gearboxes as are found in factory machinery. These are designed for electric motor loads but not efficiency. Automobile gearboxes and transmissions are efficient but can't handle the electric motor environment.

Timmy D Hughjes Sr

4:35pm | Jan 20, 2008

This is very good, the world the people of our nation need cars power by other means then gasoline. I have been in the auto manufacturing business for over 25 years and it is great to read about a company that is looking at total electric forms of transportation. In my visions I have seen electric power cars, boats, public transportation, thank about how much money a cab company in New York could save on fuel cost with an electric power Cab.

Thank about the mother in her electric powered minivan, running the kids from one point to another running errands, not worrying about the high cost of Gas, or the high cost of repairs. I see larger vechicles SUV, delivery vehicles and so on, with the high cost of fuel and the oil producing country getting richer and the citizens of our country are see a steady increase in the cost of living all around us due to the high cost of fuel.

In designing your future vehicles please keep the average consumer in mind, there information will be very valuable in your vehicle design, and sales. It warms my heart to see a company going forward with this. THIS IS OUR FUTURE.

Max

2:22pm | Jan 21, 2008

# k2 wrote on January 17th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
#
# Max, haven’t you heard, the writers are on strike….

Thanks.. :) That was a great comment.. Really cheered me up. :)

Max

2:38pm | Jan 21, 2008

I would like to make a feature request for the Tesla roadster, Whitestar, and future Tesla products:

Since Mr. Ze’ev Drori has been successful in the field of car alarms:
Could Tesla include an alarm system from the factory that would virtually eliminate car theft of our beloved roadsters, and other Tesla cars. (other than physically picking the cars up and towing them, the cars should not be able to be moved from their parked location by unauthorized operators.) This would greatly help reduce insurance rates, as well as increase consumer confidence in electric cars. It would also be a great marketing idea.

Rob

4:38pm | Jan 21, 2008

The blogs are slowing down big time. Whats happing at Tesla?? Bad or good, we just want to know. We love this company!

Jon

7:04pm | Jan 21, 2008

I'm a big fan of Tesla Motors and wish them the best. Their concept of going from the top down with a high performance, low volume performance vehicle makes sense for their first product. But, in order to "save the planet", why can't we see more partnering efforts? If Tesla can partner with Lotus for the roadster, why can't they license their design to Mercedes so the world could see a low cost entry level full electric version of the Smart ForTwo? Given the transmission issues of Tesla's current roadster design, licensing could generate cash and overcome some resource limitations, or is it learning curve related delays?
Thanks

Charlie,
I agree that the well to wheel calculation page is well done. Although a little hard to follow, it seems to be an authentic accounting. So take their optimistic, but honest, 51% efficiency as a realistic basis, and note that this mostly is due to the average thermal efficiency of the power plant generating process, then the claim of 135 mpg equivalent should be about 70 mpg equivalent. Still good. I would accept this as an honest claim.
Thomas J,
Sorry about the negative tone, but I am not one to cheer when it seems that serious problems are coming our way as a nation. I admit that when I get involved in something like this, the outcome does not include a lot of friends.
As to the electricity that gets into an electric car battery: My thinking is that we should look at the result of adding many electric cars to the existing electric load and how the additional power needed would be generated. Coal fired plants produce electricity at 2-3 cents per kwhr. There is a lot of coal and a lot of generating equipment in place and more coming. Hydro, geo, solar, nuclear, and wind power are fully used now. Natural gas fired plants are getting more efficient than coal, but natural gas is not so plentiful in this country, though getting it here by shipping as LNG is helping. But it can be expected to go up in price to align more closely with oil prices, such that the cost of thermal equivalent amounts is about the same. As it is, electricity from natural gas costs about 10 cents per kwhr. I believe these costs are without including amortization of equipment. We in California have laws in place that block construction of new coal plants and contracting for electricity from out of state coal plants. Given these realities, I think it is reasonable to expect that the cost of electricity here to be ultimately dependent on the spot market for electricity. This is not a contract arrangement and electricity is not earmarked. So one of these summers coming soon, the demand for electricity will be high and natural gas prices will be increasing, so the electricity traders will make a lot of money selling us electric energy from their cheap sources, namely coal. They can claim it comes from something else, but the reality will be that more coal will be stoked into furnaces somewhere. We will have a big crisis without brownouts and such, and then we will change the laws. The crisis will not soon end because it will take a while to get the coal plants in operation.
My tone gets really negative about government bungling, though it is well intentioned.
I am old enough to remember the crisis of the 70’s where big subsidies created phony corporations to places such as Altamont Pass with wind generators. I have driven through there many times; rarely are these turning in significant numbers. Maybe it is different at hours when I am not there. But get a grip; what does this suggest about average output versus peak output. Oops, there goes negative tone. We all paid for these through subsidies, both PGE rebates and tax breaks.
Mark,
I am all for solar when it gets in a price range that it justifies like a capital investment in a business. If we are talking about the relative merit of systems, we should not include rebates and tax breaks that we all pay for. We should also remember that when everybody installs $60,000 solar systems, we will all be paying for each others rebates and tax breaks.
However, if power delivered to the Tesla comes from your own installation, it would only cost your amortization and maintenance costs.
As far as the EPA goes, I will have to go after them if they are talking about MPG equivalent for electric cars. This nonsense has to stop. The G stands for gallon which has to suggest some kind of fuel to be burned. Burned fuel has to go through a heat engine if it is to become energy in the electric form. This results, not in a little advertising exaggeration, but an extreme lie of large magnitude. It is comparable with telling a home buyer they will only have to pay half the mortgage on their house. Well, I guess maybe that is the national standard of behaviour. Oops, there I go negative again.

Actually I think a little sarcasm is a help in not getting too depressed.

Best regards, Jim Bullis

Steve M

2:46pm | Jan 23, 2008

It would be great if Tesla could partner with Fisker automotive. That's a great car, and absolutely gorgeous. (well except for the grile. :( )
Tesla could make the whitestar a shared platform with Fisker's Eco Chic. (that car at least will be built and in customers hands by the end of 2009. They don't seem to have any transmission issues, or management problems.. yet.)

Ladson Isaac

11:19pm | Jan 23, 2008

Wow! Am I relieved; just read where TMC is still up and running and has the solution to the xmission problem...eliminate it and mod the drive-line with liquid cooling...based on knowledge learned from the Whitestar project.

@Jim Bullis and all others:
I believe the energy future of our earth lies with direct solar cell and solar thermal power plants, with the energy stored using batteries, flywheels, chemical heat, etc. The other forms of power generation found today are but interim experiments helping to discover technical answers to these solutions.

Additionally, our future in personal ground transportation lies in Battery Electric Vehicles. Fossil fuels, emission controls and the internal combustion engine are nothing more than health risk experiments along the way. Albeit, a set of long 100 plus years of experiments that continue today to hasten people to their graves.

"We'll retrofit all the initial cars as needed with the final transmission, which is also a one-speed"

Am I missing something? Big change of plans? Or can I assume Joe was misinterpreted?

Darin Ladd

3:00am | Jan 24, 2008

***Hey, guys! Am I the only one who's a little let down that there hasn't been a new blog thread in a month?***

Daniel Ademu-John

4:43am | Jan 24, 2008

That is what I am talking about !!!!.... All action and no talk . This new CEO (Mr EV) might know what he is doing after all!!! P1 is beeing shipped in weeks and production starts in a couple of months. Good job TM!!! Also I like your KISS approach with the tranny (keep it simple stupid).

Sounds like they were duly impressed. A few things aren't as clear as they could be (the well-to-wheels comparison with the Prius will provoke head-scratching for those who don't already know how it works, and I laughed at the poor sentence structure that led to a claim that "Tesla's baby" was the champion of AC) but overall it's quite good. And it was certainly a relief to see that the author was allowed to drive with both gears, and produced a tested 4.0s 0-60 run in less than ideal conditions.

Way to go Tesla! I hope some of the naysayers' howling is diminished.

Hunter

10:18am | Jan 24, 2008

Jim Bullis, regarding your response to Charlie, it looks like you're forgetting that there's a well-to-pump component to ICE cars as well. The 135mpg number (which apparently Motor Trend is giving as 105mpg, which may be the result of the new testing) is not a well-to-wheels number, but rather a gas-equivalence number which is designed for comparison to the sticker mpg of ICE cars. When you read that a gas vehicle gets 30mpg, that's a pump-to-wheels number. So it makes sense to give the charger-to-wheels number for the Tesla for an apples-apples comparison. We could go the other way and start requiring the ICE manufacturers to quote well-to-wheels instead, which would drop everyone's numbers by a lot; but that doesn't seem likely to happen.

It should be noted that well-to-wheels is clearly the better comparison by virtue of being more inclusive. Which is why the page you are talking about exists. But when you want to describe to a lay person how efficient the vehicle is, the only realistic option you have is using the same type of metric as the rest of the industry. And that metric is pump-to-wheels gas mileage, which for the Roadster appears to be either 105 or 135 mpg.

Hunter

10:37am | Jan 24, 2008

Wow, Kevin, thanks for tipping us off on that press release; I hadn't seen that yet. Of course it just gets the mind racing to new questions:

1)What's the top speed? The release claims to keep the same 0-60 spec and improve the quarter-mile time, but makes no mention of the top end, which seems to be the hard part of going single-speed while keeping acceleration.

2)What's the new range? This is fantastically exciting if it's really true that the new solution is lower weight and higher efficiency.

3)What's the timeline? It sounds like there will have to be new range/efficiency testing at the least. At worst it sounds like this could force another round of prototyping, maybe even with crash and durability testing. I hope that's not the case.

4)Will this affect vehicle cost? Seems like it could go either way on this one (cheaper tranny, more expensive motor), but isn't likely to stay the same.

Like I said, this is exciting. My favorite part is that it sounds like a much more elegant solution. Adding gears to an electric car always seemed like a kludge...my EV (a converted '84 Chevy S10) lugs around a ridiculously heavy 4-speed that I leave in second all the time, and it irks me to no end. Anyway, I'd love to see a big blog post from the engineering folks describing this new solution in a lot more detail. Of course, I'd love to see a big blog post about, well, anything at this point, but that's a different story ;-)

In the Motor Trend piece, which I otherwise enjoyed, I thought the writer wasted a lot of space talking about the Tesla/Edison rivalry, and wondering aloud why the car was named "Tesla" and not "Tom" or "Edison," given that it runs on batteries. If he had asked this question of Tesla people, they would have told him that the motor in the car -- the heart that makes it RUN -- was the descendant of a Tesla design, and that the battery's Edisonian DC must be converted to Tesla's favorite AC in order for that motor to work. I think I just explained the matter in far fewer words than the writer took to express (but not resolve) the "mystery." So did the writer just fail to find the answer? Or fail to talk about it because the Tesla/Edison thing seemed more of a hook (and a way to tie up the story at the end)?

Regardless, it is good to see the mainstream automotive press validating the reality of the Roadster and heaping compliments upon the car. To all the current and former Teslans, whose inspiration and perspiration (to borrow from Edison) made the Motor Trend article possible, thank you very much.

Andrew Kelsey

12:03pm | Jan 24, 2008

Is it reasonable to assume that, even with all the changes you've mentioned in the latest press release, all other performance features of the car will remain the same or be improved, as was the quarter mile time? I'm thinking of range, regen ability (connected to range obviously), on limit handling on overun (also connected to regen I believe). I don't know what else could be affected but I assume all of this is being carefully watched. Can we expect much better acceleration overall....say to 100mph...as you're now able to push the motor harder without overheating?

Richard

12:45pm | Jan 24, 2008

Wow!!

I am impressed. You are forgiven for the silence (well almost ;) ) Glad that there is more action than talk now.
I was worried for quite a while that Tesla imploded (that was the word in my management course at my University. Letting go of key figures is usually not a good sign. Maybe we were all wrong?

Could I ask for a favor: While I'm saddened that we don't get blog updates as often as we used to, I would still like to get information about Tesla. Could you please link all Press releases, Newspaper articles, Car Magazine reviews, etc. from your website? It's very hard to keep track of all the information about Tesla when it is all over the place. An updated "link list" would help immensely.

Can't wait to read about all the new information. Hopefully the new transmission will survive the occasional track day (Laguna Seca, Thunder hill, etc.)

Please also add the roadster to the upcoming Gran Turismo 5, every major/important car maker is included in that game/simulator. (other simulators such as www.rfactor.net, Richard Burns, racer, etc. would be great too...) It helps create publicity, as well as allow people to "test" the car before they consider a purchase.

Richard

Andrew Kelsey

12:58pm | Jan 24, 2008

I've been watching the Motor Trend VP9 launches on youtube on the link above video.google.com/videosearch?q=tesla+car&num=10&hl=en&so=1&start=0 and it looks as though the brake lights are operating in conjunction with the traction control, so as the car accelerates away the brake lights keep coming on. This looks really weird and I hope something can be done about it for the production cars. The last thing you expect to see from a car that is accelerating away is the brake lights coming on. What is even stranger is that this seems to happen even in the video clips that are marked as being with TC off. I could understand it with TC on but why should brake lights show with TC off?

Rob

2:51pm | Jan 24, 2008

I thought that was odd as well seeing the break lights light up a bit as it took off. Is that a design feature or a software issue that was being worked on still at the time?

Andrew Kelsey

7:03pm | Jan 24, 2008

Rob, it doesn't look as though anybody is going to tell us, but we just have to hope they're listening. My guess is that they can't prevent it from happening very easily. I'm not sure what the trigger is that operates the brake lights but I think I read somewhere that it's not just a simple switch but is triggered by deceleration so that it will operate when there is regenerative braking taking place but nobody is touching the brake pedal. Maybe it is additionally triggered by any braking activity at all and that would explain why it comes on when the TC cuts in. I think the TC operates through the brakes like the ABS, but I may well be wrong. I really hope they can stop it happening as it is going to confuse following drivers a lot. I'm not even sure it would be legal in the UK working like that but I don't know about the US.

Andrew Kelsey

4:14am | Jan 25, 2008

Editor, would it be too much to ask for a comment on the above? It doesn't seem like there's any real reason to be secretive about this is there? If it's a problem you've already fixed, great. If it hasn't been fixed yet but you're working on it, that's fine too. Is there any reason you couldn't at least acknowledge the query and say you'll get back to us. We're all Tesla enthusiasts here, hoping for a successful launch.

Editor's Note: It has nothing to do with secrecy, just bandwidth. We can't respond to every inquiry right away. I think it was just a bug. I shot those videos and noticed the flashing. I assure you the flashing serves no real purpose and was likely a bug. I can't imagine it is related to TC because the lights flash even in the videos with TC off.

Andrew Kelsey

10:09am | Jan 25, 2008

Thanks for responding. I'm sorry if I was impatient. I noticed it was happening with TC off too but if it was just a bug that's great. It's only a detail but it does look really weird on an accelerating car.

Rob

12:19pm | Jan 25, 2008

Thank you so much for replying. If this is a bug, has it been corrected yet and how are the break lights really susposed to work? Also, if tiny software bugs like appear after customers have position of their cars, how will the software patches be applied to the car?

Steve M

1:22pm | Jan 25, 2008

I think you guys are nitpicking at this point. Then again: absence of real information creates rumors...

Either way it is something minor. I doubt that Tesla would be hung up on something minor as blinking brakelights. For all I know, or care, this could be a diagnostic thing for development purposes. Use the blinking as a diagnostic code. (My Fiero does that. When I shorten two wires the car will blink check engine codes on startup. I just have to count the number of blinks and look up the corresponding code in the factory workshop manual. Great feature actually..)

I hope people aren't starting conspiracy theories now, trying to decypher the Tesla blink sequence.. although that would be funny.. :)

btw. thanks for the new blog. Also great thanks that it's heavy on information. I think Tesla is becoming a real company after all. I'm very exited!!!

timberspine

12:04pm | Jan 26, 2008

base price: $98,000!!! halibut!? and they're already touting the bright future of this one ... who the eff is gonna buy one? I'd rather wait for an aptera!

CM

4:42pm | Jan 26, 2008

"I’ve been watching the Motor Trend VP9 launches on youtube and it looks as though the brake lights are operating in conjunction with the traction control, so as the car accelerates away the brake lights keep coming on. This looks really weird."

Could it be that the driver has the left foot on the brake and the right foot on the accelerator? If so, the driver might be inadvertently pressing on the brake while accelerating, causing the brake lights to come on. Admittedly, it seems unlikely for an auto magazine pro driver to make such an elementary blunder, as it could cause brake wear and wreak havoc with the acceleration test runs.

Or it could be a loose brake light switch.

it was a loose brake switch -ed.

M.Hamdi Mustafa

9:37am | Jan 27, 2008

Hi everybody,
in short - after highly appreciating your great results with this amazing Pure electric Car - I've an idea to achieve a the following progress as extra to yours :
1. Your Battery Compartment become less heavy and much cheaper
2. the car will go for very long trips, and may not need any recharge from Home's Outlets for weeks, or may be for months
3. It will require some modifications in it's Body ( this may need the cooperation with the car Manufacturers to do the needful )

Ofcourse, My new idea to do this, is something will be added to your car ... If you are really interested, You may contact me ASAP >>> as you know it's considered a top secret .... Pls accept My Best Wishes

Gian Lencioni

6:18pm | Jan 27, 2008

I was wondering if you guys have looked at the new spray on Solar technology? It is twice as efficient as current technology. My thought would be to paint the Tesla with it as a way to recharge the batteries, and thus develop a car that is powered by it's own paint.

Also, have you thought about applying the electric motors to other applications? For example, a 60 foot Ta Chiao Ketch (Tall sailing ship). These sail boats generally have 150-200 HP diesel motors in them for when there is no wind. If the Tesla's power plant could be sold to boaters to install in these Tall sailing ships, they could be powered with Tesla's batteries and recharged with the new Solar technology, thus negating the need to ever pay for fuel.

Also, Have you considered making an SUV? It does not have to be as fast as the Tesla, but I bet you could get it to perform same as todays gass powered Suvs.

Hunter,
I completely agree that well to wheels is the right way to do it. But I found that it is quite hard to nail down. However, estimates seem to be in the vicinity of 85% for gasoline, but there is no form of energy that does not carry some form of shipping, capital equiment and so on as a cost to getting it to the point of combustion. I can be content to not quibble about this stage.

But by far the most important burden in converting fuel to electrical energy is the heat engine. You get a reasonably accurate comparison if you start at the point of combustion, where fuel is turned into heat energy. For an ICE car, fuel from the pump is a good, measurable point. For an electric car, fuel into the gas turbine, or whatever, should be the measured quantity. If we have such measurements, it is possible to convert the fuel quantity to a heat quantity in BTU. It is then with reasonable honesty that we can compare the efficiencies of the respective systems. Its ok to talk about BTU in KWHR, as long as it is clear which side of the heat engine you are talking about. In my old thermodynamics text they said that it was customary to use BTU when talking about heat and KWHR when talking about electricity. Though not complying with the metric standard, it sure helps to keep things from getting confused.

Reasonable arguments can be made about what efficiency should be expected from electric power plants. Tesla uses 51% in their well to wheels chart, accounting for the power plant and whatever else I am not sure. I tend to think the it should be more like 34%, but I can accept either. But I just can not believe it is honest to not account for the fact that power plants throw away as much, or twice as much, energy in heat as they produce in electrical energy.

Gian Lencioni

9:36pm | Jan 29, 2008

- this car is very expensive -

Reply]
Yes, because it is a Super car, and is priced in the same bracket as every other Super car. You don't see Ferrari's being sold for 13,500.00 do you? No, they are $100,000.00+

When Tesla perfects everything and decides to make everyday cars too, THEN they will have cars selling for 13,500.00 in addition to the model they have now.

In the mean time, I want to see applications of the new Spray on Solar technology to produce a Tesla powered by it's own paint.

My thought is that if you painted the entire car with the Spray on Solar collector, then I could drive a Tesla to work, park it outside and it will be fully recharged by the time I am done working. In addition, since this new Solar technology can produce electricity from the infrared spectrum, it can charge at nite too. Even if it's only available in a dark color like today's solar panels, spray the Tesla with it, Urethane clear over it and I'm buying.

This idea could produce a Tesla with an unlimited driving range. One could drive the batteries dead, recline the seat, nap for a few hours and upon waking, have enough power to go a few more miles to find a motel or some place to camp for the nite while the Vehicle fully recharges itself.

I know portable solar collectors the size of the hood alone can produce 55w today with standard technology. Based on that, I am betting that the entire painted surface area of the Tesla is enough to make a Solar collector big enough to charge it at an acceptable rate, especially with the improved technology.

Think about how cool it would be to have a car that is ALL electric with No need to plug in at nite, or use the grid in any way. No need for Coal produced electricity to draw on and harm the environment, and NO cost to power after the purchase price of the vehicle itself. Hybreds will go the way of the Dinosaurs before they even get started

Andrew Kelsey

11:30am | Feb 1, 2008

Not that the car is slow, or in any way needs it, but has it occurred to anybody else what a great upgrade it would be for the Roadster to fit it with the future water-cooled drivetrain from the WhiteStar? I would imagine the 2010/11 model Roadster might come with that drivetrain as standard anyway. By then we might have a functioning gearbox with 2 or even 3 speeds and the potential for a real road rocket. Now if the battery technology has moved on, by then, you could have a smaller, lighter battery offering the same range and with the water-cooled motor no problem for track use. Hmmm.....just dreaming a little. I don't suppose the editor or Ze'ev could be tempted to offer any comment.

Roger Richardson

12:58pm | Feb 1, 2008

It amasses me how so many of you read a tech article that says someone has done something in the lab and you immediately turn that into a "paint the car with nanopaint" or "build the battery pack out of nanowires", as if this stuff goes from the lab to production as soon as the article is written. If we waited for all the new technology, most of which will probably fail or be replaced by something better before it can be produced, we'd never build anything. Let's build this roadster and get it out there with the technology we have now and that in itself will spur all those lab ideas into the next iterations that lead to improvements for future generation of the cars. Elon said in this latest town hall meeting that those buying this roadster are not just getting a great car, but are advancing the interest and ideas that will drive this technology to bigger and better heights. So, patients gang, love what we've got and hope this drives us to a better future.

Rafael

10:16pm | Feb 6, 2008

I wonder how is Tesla Motors going to deal with the goverment (the US goverment to be specific) in respect to Zero emition and laws.
Last time I checked the California Air Reseource Board didn't pass a law to allow electric cars in California and "kiled the electric car"
Even if they kept the law, the US goverment was going to sue California State for passing such a law.
Are the legal issue being addressed by Telas motors?

Rich Sugden

12:47pm | Feb 7, 2008

Couldn't there be some way to partition this blog into "engineering", "EV concepts", "Problems and Solutions", etc... It has a lot of very interesting information, but it's almost impossible to read due to the subjects jumping all over the place ... Also, comments from Tesla staff should be highlighted...

Thanks!

Earl

2:12pm | Feb 7, 2008

Rafael,
The California ZEV (Zero Emission Vehicle) law is not about permitting ZEV vehicles, it mandates a certain number of them be produced by the major auto manufacturers. It was watered down (drowned?) by CARB to the point where auto manufacturers could avoid having to build any electric cars if they engaged in non-productive research or golf-cart (NEV) sales. Electric Vehicles have always been allowed to drive on the roads if someone builds them.

Pri_them2

5:54pm | Feb 11, 2008

I think the limited range is a big issue. However, an on-board diesel generator may damage the clean image of the electric car. Besides, a "series hybrid" may not be as efficient as Toyota's hybrid design.

1. It is still a good trade off to add an on-board generator, but make sure a clean and quiet one is chosen for the job.
2. It is important that the generator can be run anytime especially when you stop for the night on a long trip. i.e. the generator needs to keep on running after you pull the key and lock the doors.

Dr.Edson ASndre' Johnson D.D.ULC

3:03pm | Feb 12, 2008

Wodering in Tesla Motors plans to eneter (or start?) say a cross USA race with EVS and other alternative powered cars/ i ask because there was a planned Feb 12,2008 Great Race from New York City to Paris.Haveing Alternative powered cars ! Electric vehicles represent the best REAL solution to the gasolene Greed problems of Big Oil right now! Move On Tesla Motors great!!!!

Dr.Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC

3:06pm | Feb 12, 2008

How about a Tesla Motors and other Aleternaive cars racing from say California to maine? To show the benifits of Eletric Vehicles over other alterve powered vehicles?

Roy

4:04pm | Feb 13, 2008

Tesla has entered a Roadster in the http://auto.xprize.org/ cross country race. I hope that they will also enter a Whitestar.

Miguel Henriques

4:13pm | Feb 13, 2008

Humm... 98000$ = +- 67000€, It competes with a BMW 3 series. For example, here in Portugal a 335d w/options sells for 84000€.
When does Tesla come to Europe? I have already sold my bimmer and I'm looking for a new ride!!!

Byron Lovelace

2:34pm | Feb 15, 2008

The Tesla Roadster is thrilling, but what most households in America need is a different package - a minivan. If you made a Tesla "grand caravan" that would alternately carry 7 passengers, or the kid's band gear, or a few sheets of 4x8 ply, you would not be able to sell them fast enough. I for one am needing and wanting and waiting for that.

Bill Howland

4:53am | Feb 16, 2008

I guess I don't understand all the worry about fast charging. Most power companies charge a demand charge (aka FINE) for any draw above 10,000 watts ( 42.5 amps @ 240) . So, I wonder if its possible to 'tone down' the home charger to a 30 amp draw instead of the supposed 70 amp draw, and tolerate a 9 hour recharge time. I would like to hear some specs regarding battery charger efficiency ( I assume 95%), battery charge-discharge efficiency ( I'm assuming 99.5 % , even though that seems unreasonably high), but on a new product, it would be nice if there were some detailed specs on your web sight. There's obviously interest here, since question from the audience dwelled on this. I worry that the reason a spec sheet isn't developed is that they haven't really thought about it. The tesla spokesman who said (40 amp 240 volt dryer plug is woefully uninformed. 40 amp is a RANGE / STOVE / WELDER OUTLET PLUG). A dryer outlet could only produce 6000 watts. The fact that the designers are not aware of this possibly is due to their European Breeding, but, to an intelligent audience, it sounds like a math PhD saying that 2 + 2 = 5.
Adding to the confusion is they initially called it a 'charging station', and now they call it an 'extension cord'. So you guys are to blame for the confusion. We need some more detailed specs guys. So, if you haven't done it already, firm up the specs to the point where you can produce a spec sheet.

Bill Howland

4:59am | Feb 16, 2008

The guy mentioned 3 different charging rates, but then didn't specify very clearly. One I assume is 70 amps @ precisely what design voltage? (220, 230, 240?). And I assume the Low one is 15 amperes @ 120 volts, but again, what precisely is it (12 amps, 16 amps, and at what design voltage ? 110, 115, 120?). And what's the third one - the 40 amp dryer (again, woefully misinformed). I assume the 40 amp draw is for a 50 amp circuit. But in american homes, there are no 40 amp dryers. Very disconcerting that these folks don't know this.

Matt Jewett

11:10am | Feb 16, 2008

I couldn't agree more with what Byron Lovelace says above. I, of course, love the roadster and want one (I mean, who wouldn't?) - but I also have a wife and three young kids ages 4 and under. If Tesla even built a sedan that fit more people - I'd immediately run out and buy one. A minivan (or equivalent) would be the grail. I love all the technology about this company - except the price and the limited options of vehicle at the moment. Tesla - if you build a sedan or Minivan type vehicle and price it between 30 - 45 k; you will have more business than what you ever dreamed of! The big auto makers would be spinning like a top!

David

2:55pm | Feb 20, 2008

Editor - Please ask Darryl to recheck the facts on the "fastest 30 to 70 mph acceleration of any production car ever tested by Car & Driver magazine" that he claimed in the press release - http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=822702 (BTW - why aren't all your releases posted on your website?). I think he may have misinterpreted Car & Driver's statement of "Our top-gear acceleration measured 2.3 seconds for the 30-to-50- and 50-to-70-mph intervals. The Tesla’s 4.6-second total for the two tests bests that of a Mercedes-Benz CLK63 AMG Black Series, which was our 2007 champion in this measure of instant responsiveness."

Top-gear acceleration does not compare to real world 30-70 mph numbers... if it did, a GMC Canyon truck with Top-gear acceleration, 30-50 mph: 3.8 and 50-70 mph: 6.3, would be considered twice as fast as a Corvette Z51 with Top-gear acceleration, 30-50 mph: 9.8 and 50-70 mph: 9.0... Car and Driver, unfortunately, does not test for 30-70 mph acceleration, but if you check http://www.supercarworld.com/cgi-bin/showtop10.cgi?24 , you will see the standard fare supercars that you would expect.

A word of advice, your product is fantastic... don't try to oversell it, or allt hat consumers will remeber is a shaky reputation.

shaun88

9:29am | Mar 21, 2008

I was wondering if your engineering department has considered a CVT transmission. This type of transmission would be a little larger and heavier than a 2-speed gearbox but would likely solve a lot of your self-destructive problems and quite possibly help the cars performance and efficiency while reducing strain and shock to the rest of the drive train.

shaun88

9:38am | Mar 21, 2008

With the CVT transmission you would also be able to increase the top speed to a more supercar like level.

Bill Howland

1:37pm | Mar 29, 2008

Hunter and Timo: Hi.

Well, I have to admit you guys solved the power company demand pricing issue: carry around your own 3000 horsepower diesel and park it near freeway entrances! I think Diesel price will settle at $28 per 100 kwh, so if it takes 75 kwh to charge up a tesla (Per Simpson), thats $21. Not bad. Now we need a not-for-profit foundation to buy, run, and maintain the diesel.

Just a few issues to throw a monkey wrench in: is the 667 Kw going to be 800 amps @ 480 volts 3 phase? HOW HEAVY is the required rectifier/controller in the car going to be, and are we going to be required to tow around a unit the size of a refrigerator when we do the 0-60 test in 4 seconds?

Why release the car with an interim transmission? This seems like a mistake to me and will end up costing you more in the long run. It's like buying the car while it is still in beta. Many people are interested in the Tesla, and would be willing to wait to receive the final product with the advertised performance numbers.

neil wilson III

8:08pm | May 6, 2008

dear: Ze'ev Drori
i herd in the future that you would like to open a plant well michigan econmy is herting this state has lost som factorys but im not a fatory worker but you could open a car plant here we have a huge car photography in this state. you could also give jobs to unemployed here we have a crisis in this state and our govener is doing nothing this state could be part of your manufacturing of frames among other things. i do not want credit fo any of this you have a growing company and we have a state in troble could you help the unemployed here. im not anyone promnet but i care about this state with its awsome lakes. we need jobs here. and you need a plant, micigan may be a good fit
sincerly,

Regarding the limited range of your great looking car, let me start with I'M NOT AN ENGINEER!!! However, I would like to suggest using multiple high output alternators to charge the batteries while driving. Perhaps using as many as 3 or more alternators. The alternators can get thei power from the drive axle. Make an axle with a spline. Attach a matching gear from the axle to the alternators. I know that the magnetic field created by the rotation of an alternator has some resistance and takes power from the batteries but I don't think that it uses more than it makes. I know that this idea needs a lot of work but I think that this idea will work and add many miles to your cars range. I hope that you can use this idea and that you would like to park a new roadster in my driveway as a way of saying thanks for such a great idea. - James

So sorry to hear abaout the recent loss of Tesla Employees in Palo Alto Plane Crash

fastcardsahring

4:44pm | Nov 15, 2014

top.bestcccamserver.com comes in Over the last 3 years we reviewed over 20 Cardsharing cccam services in detail, we written reviews about the Best cccam server for our visitor. We are not adopted by any of the companies listed. best cardsharing server .